Rattenkrieg

For the curious on how AI is learning to play video games:

Is it really 2 guys developing all of this? Vehicles, animations, UI, textures, sounds, MP infra etc?

Thank you! @37mm Indeed I was able to get the translucent foliage issue to disappear by using the Advanced War Movie shaders, which seem to disable MXAO. One thing that is a bit off-putting is the degree to which metal reflects light to the point where the entire front of an AFV can turn white at certain angles.

Thanks @37mm that makes sense. Could you post your shader preset that you use for the WW2 games?

Any new Reshade presets or tips? I noticed that turning MXAO on makes low walls basically burn through all foliage, creating a series of criss-crossed lines on the screen. Does anyone else see that?

Hello folks - wondering if anyone knows how to increase the draw distance outside of the max settings in the game? Sometimes in other games I have been able to set up config files to override game menu settings, with things such as forcing memory sizes, screen resolutions and draw distances. Thanks!

Thanks guys, much appreciated.

I couldn't have come up with a better coda. Here are 2 fun little nuggets for the curious. 1) Build your own Terminator Target Acquisition HUD in Microsoft Hololens. 2) Where did that "code" on the original Terminator HUD come from? std::terminate

Ian, but I am discussing AI and DL with you. The Nvidia video and paper are incredible advances that should get game developers very excited. Imagine being able to use a GAN-based SDK from Nvidia to create a photo-realistic WW2 game based on DL from 10,000+ hours (x25fps) of combat footage from WW2 that has been restored by AI to 4K? Imagine being able to train your "pixeltruppen" using Google's (DeepMind) autonomous locomotion framework for rich environments (when it is released)? Just because two people who work in/with AI don't like how the other behaves on a forum doesn't mean there i

I struggle to see the connection between the suggestion they use data and the inference that there is a recycling bin approach to it. I suggest they start gathering gameplay data and analysing it, because they generate an enormous amount of it (every bullet, footstep and click) and have the competitive advantage of H2H and registering what players look at when they replay WEGO over and over. That's valuable. BFC has been around for 24 years is it? I am sure they will want to be around for another 26 at the very least. They could reach out to universities and get interns who love military,

p.s. just in case I am not posting enough Arxiv links to back up my computer generated street cred: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.06601.pdf

The TL;DR version. My original statement above hypothesizes a future in which "vast amounts" of gameplay data and computer vision data derived from actual combat footage are processed by NNs to construct autonomous tactical models. It's a forward looking hypothesis of a direction in which wargaming AI may evolve, and something game developers should be encouraged to explore, because I can guarantee you that a day will come in the not-too-distant future where CGI does not mean models built by people. Having seen a Palantir demo in person (which I am sure naysayers will call a closed-loop hype d

You are an exercise in self-contradiction. I stated that the AI being developed by Palantir as part of their winning DSCG-A bid is "the closest thing I have seen so far" to AI and CV being able to generate autonomous battlefield C&C. You jumped on your high horse and started telling me how wood and trees does not equal forest. You actually state that you have no idea what they are doing but that it is pure bull****. Have you any idea how silly that is? Yet, by your logic, I'm misinformed and hyperbolic? This means you have no idea about - yet simultaneously understand and a

Well @IanL I use it as a litmus test. If you claim that, arguably, the world's leading AI defense contractor is "full of pure bull****" don't you think that a detailed set of reasonings is required to back up that statement? He lists a set of reasons as to why ML is, in general, difficult to apply to the dynamic complexities of combat, however when you make an outlandish claim that the established leader in battlefield AI (just ask Raytheon who lost to them) has completely fooled the Pentagon, that is akin to stating that you know exactly what the Pentagon put out an RFP for, what Palantir dem

It's all well and good to post links to papers (just FYI the majority of the most interesting papers published on AI in 2018-9 are in Mandarin). I'm still waiting for @BletchleyGeek to back up his claim that Palantir ($800 million contract to build a DeepLearning based warfighting system for the US Army) is full of "pure bull****". How anyone can make a ludicrous claim like that and get away with it speaks volumes.

I do find it remarkable how incurious a researcher you appear to be. How could this have "beaten" you for 8 years and yet I figured it out so quickly? The [LMB] is used to "select" in all cases. So presumably [Alt] and [Shift] are modifiers of the "select" action. I had the manual open and clicked on everything on every page. I must be a machine. You couldn't figure this out or research it on the forums.

Makes outlandish, arrogant and boastful claim with zero evidence to back it up. Pops smoke. Retreats.

It's amusing to watch you contradict yourself. You mentioned Alpha then immediately how AlphaGo was trained by humans and absolutely no mention of AlphaGo Zero. How am I to take you seriously? --- space reserved for when I have more time --

It says a lot to me that you are referencing AlphaGo which was beaten 100-0 by AlphaGo Zero. That was 2015, mate, an eternity in DL-time. Either you didn't know about AlphaGo Zero (which as a researcher in the AI space would be weird) or you omitted it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. Either way, not including AlphaGo Zero is like debating navies where one side is thinking wooden sailing ships and the other is thinking nuclear submarines and GPS missiles. The only thing in common is the laws of physics. Let's just pause for a moment and put

I used to find the Tactical Battle UI annoying - now I find that it works really well with a minimum of clicking. The order wheel is pretty intuitive and allows for a lot of permutations. I can give an order to covert advance in tactical column with tight spacing and then queue up an order to spread out into a line with medium spacing and attack using smoke. That's not too clunky in my opinion. This is an unfortunate pathfinding problem if you issue multiple March orders to units that use the same roadway, and I just consider it one of those things I have to micro. I set my March order

Spending more time on mods than playing the game defines me fairly well. Which is one reason why I plan to start a gaming dev company when I sell / exit my current business. I want to create a series of SDKs based around AI frameworks so modders can focus on training soldiers, units and crews using data sets from a few hundred thousand gameplay recordings from Twitch and YouTube. This is the modding of the future and will make it possible to have 1,000 vs 1,000 battalion level battles with realistic behavioural models and no need for manual scripting or skinning. Back to work... 😀

Define "extremely clunky games." Which aspects are clunky? How many hours have you played GT? I had a series of expectations coming into GT from CM and other titles, and once I learned the UI and C&C system and philosophy behind the game design, it grew on me immensely and I appreciate both games in equal measure. It was kind of like going from Gary Grigsby to HOI3. Context: I bought my first CM game in 2004 (Afrika Korps) and my first GT game in 2018 (Tunisia '43). I have over 500h in both "systems" though recently returned to CM after a long time away. I respectfully disagree w

Thanks - I read that Mord's UI faces mod is not required if I already have Gustav Line. Is that still the case?

This makes sense. Strangely, though, many other modded vehicles appear in the "Firing Range" scenario, just the M4A1 Mids do not.

Yes - the M4A1 mods in question have the CMFI tag and are here: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=873 http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=869 I have added both of these folders to /Data and to /Z. Neither triggers the modded decals in the Tutorial mission #2. It's not a game-breaker I am just trying to understand which M4A1 "Mid" unit is in the TOE and how many M4A1 "Mid" models there are if this particular one in the mission does not match either of the mods linked above.