Bruce70

Good points. More variation in AI attacks and concentrating on the weakest front are two of my biggest concerns with the AI also.

Sorry that was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment.

In general I agree with you (although aspects could be made backward compatible) but as you say it took over two years. I would have preferred a quick and nasty expansion pack. That would have allowed BFC to start on the engine rebuild much sooner.

This is probably not going to be received very well but here goes... First off despite having a member number way above 5000 (which seems to be the cutoff point if you want any respect around here) I purchased CMBO soon after it was released and have been in love with it ever since. Now here are my thoughts on CMBB: Graphics/Sound: A vast improvement over CMBO but nothing particularly spectacular by todays standards (this is the last thing I worry about anyway). Interface: I may get used to the new way of moving the view so I'll reserve judgement on that, but no other UI changes seem to be that much of an improvement to me. Infantry combat tweaks: Probably make it a more realistic simulation but possibly less fun. Again I'll reserve judgment and I'm not really sure if I want more fun or more realism anyway. Armour combat tweaks: The death clock is a good thing. New orders: Good but the game still plays much the same as it always has (not that this is a bad thing) New units/scenarios: Well obviously I haven't seen all these but this will almost certainly be the biggest reason that I will buy CMBB Overall: I guess I got carried away by the forum hype but I have to confess to being a little disapointed with the demo. Everyone has been saying that CMBB should be considered a completely new game not just an expansion/update pack. IMO this is less than an expansion pack since we no longer have access to all the old scenarios/units but more than an update pack. To sum up, from what I have seen in the demo and in anticipation of all those new units I will buy CMBB, but I think I would have prefered in some ways a genuine expansion pack for CMBO instead of the "new game". I hope that in the future BFC will consider producing expansion packs rather than making us buy a "new game" that is very similar to the one(s) we have already bought or at least make the units/scenarios backwards compatable (as much as possible). [ September 03, 2002, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

All research gets you closer to a breakthrough IRL. Even if the current direction of the research will ultimately lead to a dead end that is still one path that has been eliminated. If you are at all competent that path will not have to be tried again, hence you are closer to a breakthrough. The unknown is not knowing how long a breakthrough will take, ie how many paths you will have to try. So a more realistic approach would be to have a research counter that is set to a random amount as each tech is achieved. Then the counter is reduced by the amount of investment until it reaches 0 at which time you get the next advance. If the initial value is large you may never get an advance, if it is small you may get an advance very quickly. The player doesn't know what the initial amount is so they don't know how long it will take - but they DO know they are getting closer. Also if you stop research in an area and then start again you haven't lost the work you have already done. [ September 03, 2002, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Watch a movie.

You need to be careful about changes to the editor escpecially map changes. I suspect a lot of the AI is hard-coded so if you add a mine, for example, it will probably be invisible to the AI. I like the idea of being able to merge units (2 or 3 corps to make an army for example). I don't think any human player would accept a peace offer unless there was something in it for them. Don't like the idea of war-weariness. Most of the other suggestions have been discussed before with significantly less than universal appeal.

I think much of the disagreement on the forum on this subject comes from people not specifying whether they are talking about changes for SC1 or possibilities for SC2. SC1 is a simple, quickly played game and that is what makes it appealing and stand out. There is room on my computer for a game like this and a more complex game. There is no perfect grand strategy game for me, I like variety. That is why I am against making SC1 more complicated. I will probably buy HoI also and would definately consider a more complex offering from Hubert, but SC should stay SC IMO.

I have no particular opinion on this for SC2 but I can see that it would indeed add a strategic choice. For SC1 OTOH this is being discussed at the same time as delayed production. If delayed production is important then you can't just send MPPs to Russia you have to build the units then ship them to Russia then change their colour and allow for different tech levels.

To the points made by John above 1. It might be possible to improve the sub model without adding complexity, depends what you have in mind. 2. Didn't know there was a problem. 3. Definatley adds complexity. 4. What, you mean it needs to fly or somefink? 5. I tend to agree up to a point. I think you should know you have made some progress each turn but not how long you have to go, and I think there should be a minimum time to achieve an advance. Certainly doesn't add complexity to the gameplay - but would require a lot of play testing. 6. I think supply is OK. 7. Agreed - AA defense for units not in a hex and damage to resources even when defended would be good ideas that don't add complexity. 8. Agree. 9. Don't think it would add much given the turn length. [ August 26, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I assume you are talking about SC2 here since there is no way this could be added to the current game without a significant rewrite. Now if SC2 is to stick to the same philosophy as SC1 then adding production times would have to be handled very carefuly. If you continually add user-interface-complexity to the game then you cannot really call it SC2 IMO. Same goes for the lend-lease argument - it simplifies SC to have that happen automatically. I cannot see a great deal of enjoyment coming from producing units in the US then shipping them (presumably via some off map route) to the USSR, for example, then changing the colour to red. Both of these "enhancements" make the game more complex from the users POV, effectively increasing the amount of time it takes to make a turn. I am all for adding complexity to the mechanics of the game, thats what computers are good at. But adding complexity to the gameplay would make it just another grand strategy game IMO. If that is the direction that SC2 is going then that's fine. I'm sure I'll buy it. But I think the name should reflect the fact that it is a completely different style of game.

If this happens to me (which isn't often since usually I want as much as possible ASAP) I usually adjust the fire just enough to get the delay I want and then move it back to the original target.

No and No.

And for that matter, tech would filter down to the opposition to some degree. Captured vehicles, weapons and planes can speed up ones own research effort. [disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against any changes to SC, just stating a fact/idea]

I agree. I cannot see any reason in the current system to differenciate oil and other resources on the map, so I can only assume that it was originally intended to be modelled separately (since Hubert isn't big on eye candy, thank god). As well as the current production value of oil, perhaps the ratio of armoured, air and naval units to the amount of oil-based MPPs could effect the maximum possible supply levels of these units? (For supply only, this would need to be calculated for all friendlies rather than on a 'per major-nation' basis) I think it would add something to the game if there was an extra reason to attack and defend oil resources. I can't see this adding a great deal of complexity from a gameplay POV and only a few lines of additional code for the game mechanics. Reworking the AI and play balancing would be the only possible hiccups that I can see (and maybe thats enough to make it wait for SC2). [ August 22, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

There is probably some justification for not being able to transport rockets, but for the life of me I can't think of any. Surely anything that can be moved on a railway can be moved on a ship? Can anyone offer some justification?

Yes and they are very good defensively around the marshes and rivers.

Fair enough and I agree. It is likely that the AI in SC works "pretty much" as you suggested and this is not likely to perform as well as a human opponent no matter how much it is tweaked. It is sweeping statements about AI (not made by you) that I have a problem with. As Husky said "AI will remain bad as long as people expect it to be bad". The AI in SC is pretty good but we don't want Hubert to become complacent for SC2 now do we?

Did you read the posts I made on the CM forum? That is exactly what reinforcement learning does. In fact there is no need to trust me, try reading this book by Sutton and in particular this chapter about planning and learning. This book was written a long time ago (in computing terms). Remember that the original statement involved the phrase "AI will never...", never is a very long time.

I made a very long post(s) on the CM forum about a comment like this so on this forum I'll just pose a rhetorical question "Why not?"

No idea how it works currently so I'm not sure how to change it. I guess giving a higher value (abstract value not MPP value) to units that are tech advanced would make sense if that is not already the case. But I guess the obvious answer is that whatever logic suggested that a lot of money be put into research in a particular area should also be suggesting that it use that tech. Certainly the suggestion that there should be some balance between tech expenditure and actually purchasing units is a good one. If that is the case then the AI needs to concentrate more on ind tech. But in the USSR case it had L5 ind tech also! It is just possible I suppose (maybe even probable now that I think about it) that in all the above cases just one point was invested and they got very lucky. But even so the AI needs to take advantage of its luck. No matter what the problem or solution, I think that the suggestions I made in another thread for improvements to the research system would help here. In particular - consuming RPs when an advance is made and having the chance of advances tied to unit experience. Especially the latter, so that getting an advance in Jets (for eg) should be extremely hard if you don't have any and reasonably difficult if you have them but don't use them. [sorry for mixing two topics in one thread]

I recently played a game against the AI (+1, FOW)the game ended after I had defeated all majors except USA which I was in the process of invading. When I checked the research screen I noticed that USSR had developed rockets to L5 but by the time I defeated them after a long struggle in about late '43 they had not built a single rocket unit. A similar thing appears to be happening to a friend who is playing with FOW off. In his case Italy is up to L5 jets and has not yet built a sinlge air fleet. So whats up?

You spelt institutionalized wrong. And you spelt spelt wrong.</font>

If you invest 5 pts in one research area then there is a 25% chance of getting an advance each turn. If you split them up over 5 areas then there is a 77.4% chance of getting NO advances, a 20.4% chance of getting 1 advance, a 2% chance of getting 2.1% advances, 0.1% chance of getting 3 advances and a very minimal chance of getting more. So the overall return for the split strategy is 20.4x1 + 2.1x2 + 0.1x3 = 24.9%. I'm guessing if you added the chances for 4 or 5 advances it would come out to exactly 25%. My strategy is to invest in several areas early on and when I get an advance in one area I then shift most of my research to that and change my strategy to suit that tech. [ August 18, 2002, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I hate RTS but love CM and SC. TacOps isn't bad and AA looks good too although I haven't bought it. I don't think it is strange or a coincidence that a lot of games that I like can be found at the same place.