Collingwood

Thanks for the heads-up Wodin, my amazon wish-list continues to grow.

The mentioned QB behaviour is not news to me. I have often played QBs always using QB maps, and experienced absolutely minimal enemy forces throughout the battle, providing little or no defence of objectives. At the end of the battle I end up scouring the map, and there they are, on the edge of the map, or somewhere quite irrational. No, I can't provide exact details either since I don't keep logs or journals of all my games, I just play and enjoy. But I don't think this is a really rare thing. IIRC, ND experienced something like this in one of his streams. Here we all are watching a QB and waiting for a decent stoush, which was not forthcoming. Sure that is a beta demonstration - but he did refer to the AI placement problem in QBs so I think BF are in some way aware there is an issue. That said, I don't think QBs are meant to be the main way of playing, and I have no problems with how the AI follows plans in properly designed scenarios. Basically I play QBs rarely now unless I set it to "meeting engagement". These I find to be quite fun.

And if the KV-2 doesn't seem strange enough, we can always dream of getting T-35s! Once again these only appeared early, and quite a few of them seem to have broken down or bogged themselves. How big is an action spot? T-35 length is nearly 10 meters.

Yes, I accept we are a long way from Bagration to seeing their time frame. Still - we have waited years for what we're about to receive. Good things come to those who wait I just hope they do get included when the time comes.

Lucky man! I too would love to follow the Dakar. The idea of being in it is a dream, but I don't think I would survive very long.

repsol, I have watched Mick race. You have great taste, both in bikes and riders. Keep the shiny side up

Having different CM games available is much like a wonderful banquet laid on the table. No one plate detracts from the other - they're all delicious, compliments to the chef. Bon appetit

I really, *really* like this idea RepsolCBR. I love CM but one of the things that saps my enthusiasm especially with larger scenarios is firing it up, then being confronted with anarchic chaos in the setup zone. Being able to select and deploy from a logical OOB menu would be heaven. BTW and OT, I gather from your forum name that you will understand me if I say I am "R1200GSA"

I look forward to the eventual appearance of the KV-2. I know, they were ungainly and broke down a lot - but they are so ridiculously over the top that I love them.

Yes. The TacAI is pretty good often, but when it fails most often for me is "enter that building". Sure Sarge, but we won't take the safest route. Even if you've drawn us a straight line. We will run out of cover and jink into the open street FIRST, then mill about as we're killed. I usually end up accepting it as being a way of giving the AI opposition a bit of a chance. Only problem is, his guys will do it too. I don't like micromanaging, but there are times when leaving it to the TacAI makes for some real blunder moments.

I agree the TacAI works mostly well. And besides if we want to play a truly crafty opponent H2H is always there. I'll see you there!

Erwin, I believe that's the case. A trigger is attached to a plan, and that plan can have an expiry time - so for example your platoon doesn't sit, waiting for ever for the enemy to appear at a given point. If the expiry time is reached then the AI moves on to the next plan.

I'm being optimistic here and hoping that triggers are a good compromise to getting better AI. Eventually when we have nested and conditional triggers, it will allow the scenario designer to assess the terrain and suitable plans, and anticipate the human player's plans and possible deployments and movements. The triggers are then the framework for ensuring the computer opponent reasonably maneuvers and responds. AI after all is programmed by humans who try to impart human knowledge about a problem into algorithms. You get a new appreciation for what a wonderful computer our brain is when you try to break down this knowledge into algorithms and code that is both effective and efficient. For a completely dynamic AI - one where you could just throw some terrain at it, with some objectives, and expect it to deploy and maneuver in a canny way, like Bil for example... honestly I can't see that happening. I've got experience in AI systems and every time I think about different ways I could approach the "Combat Mission dynamic AI challenge" I think I could do it as long as it was only expected to be competent rather than expert. But when I consider how much time it would take - I end up measuring it in years. Perhaps someone smart could get it done faster, but these things always turn out to be more complex and tricky than we imagine. A simple (and ultimately doomed) approach would be the brute force method: get the AI to simulate every possible permutation of move it could make, and every possible counter move etc (like the tactical side of chess engines) and assess which one seems to lead to the best possible outcome. The problem here is the number of choices quickly become astronomical, so you need to know how to prune the search tree. Otherwise you might have to wait several days for the computer to choose its move Brute force requires a lot of computing power, and chess positions are way easier to assess than CM situations, IMO. Especially since if a Queen takes a Rook, the rook is taken. But in CM when a tank shoots at a tank - several different outcomes are possible. So yeah, maybe Skynet if we go the brute force way.

Wow, I've only applied neural nets to classification problems (e.g. handwriting recognition). I can't think how you could even begin to use them for game AI. That would be really interesting. Yeah neural nets got me very excited, then reality hit home. Same with fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms.

I haven't seen a wargame AI that learns, but there are other AIs that learn. Perhaps not in the way we think of learning, but they can adjust the choices they make based on previous results. I know we're discussing wargames AI, but for Chess, "eventually the human gains supremacy" is now a long dead hope. An example of learning in computing is back propagation neural networks. Effectively you show the network a training set of data, and for each example you provide the expected answer/result. The network trains itself to a level of confidence you specify, and then you can give it further problems and it will answer based on its knowledge. Completely agree about skilled designers and triggers. I can't wait!

True, they did have a choice. But using the 43.9% figure you quote above, 56.1% (more than half) did not choose Hitler. The people, per se, had no say in Hitler becoming Chancellor - that appointment was made by Von Hindenburg. The Germans were not blameless, but their political system was in a total mess and things were pretty murky. Richard Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich" is a good and pretty thorough overview of the circumstances.

So sad but so true. I've already mentioned a certain other game wargame here (multiple times) which has excellent AI. However it was at the time quite expensive. I was happy to pay for quality, but many people focussed on the price and not the excellence. Despite the fabulous AI that wargame never got the success it deserved. One area where it's all about the AI is chess engines. People will happily pay for better AI and naturally it's a fiercely contested and constantly progressing field. But that's a completely different audience. Chess players care little for flashy 3D graphics.

I was referring more to political and social history of the USSR during Stalin's reign. But the discrepancies in military history writing are fascinating, the story of how historians correct, revise and argue over interpretations is almost a battle in itself. For even unbiased history is practically always about interpretation. Having done years of research into primary documents along with interviewing veterans (totally different theatre, I have only an amateur's interest in the eastern front) gives me an insight into how tricky it can be to reconcile records with what actually happened, why, and who was responsible. Even primary sources such as unit command diaries can disagree with each other - which to trust? Memories fade or are embellished, and personal relationships or feuds can get in the way of accurate oral history. And yes even after the war is over, propaganda continues. Historians need similar skills to detectives if they want to present a sound case.

DMS I think you're not the only one who likes the Mosin, in fact I think this was one of the first criticisms of weapons models after the screenshots were released. Within hours, or maybe only minutes.

Excellent post. And, no longer do we have arguments like: Hey, you can't shoot at those guys, they're out of sight. - no they're not, this unit can trace a line to them They can't! Your ruler is not on the middle of the hex! - is so, besides my guys are on the edge of the hex. But I'm 3 hexes back on level 3 and you are a level 1 hill. etcetera

I think the demo is a great idea. When I found out that CM games were "finally" available for OSX after having given up hope, I downloaded the CMBN demo. I played it for about a week, and couldn't believe I was having so much fun for FREE. I bought the game because the demo showed how just how damned good it was. It was like directing my own WW2 movie every night. I have not bothered with a single CM demo ever since, I just buy the games as soon as they come. Sure they are not perfect, but for me they are more perfect than anything else out there and that's all we can hope for. I enjoyed the comparisons to squad leader - I thought even just the first squad leader was the pinnacle of WW2 tactical wargaming when it came out. I'm sure the demo has saved quite a few dollars for different folks who found CMx2 wasn't for them - we won't ever know how many because they didn't bother to gripe about it.

You say "I now spend my open gaming time discouraging other gamers form purchasing any CM games on various websites". Everyone needs a hobby I guess. One day as you lie on your death bed, you will be content to have spent your brief and valuable stay on this earth that way. Good luck with your crusade. With such a noble pursuit, no one would ever accuse you of being or even

The Lord Giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

I avoid cold war era writers, I agree they mostly can't be trusted. There is much good, current research being done without the cold war hysteria. Some of the best writing is being done by Russian scholars who now have access to the Stalin archives. They still meet with resistance from old Stalinists. I know! I can't remember what the proportion was, but it was considerable. Enough to be pretty disturbing. You can still buy "notalgic" trinkets and products with a smiling Stalin on them in Russia...

I agree that we're talking about evil, or levels of evil, but if we have to dicker over whether one regime killing several or tens of millions is better or worse, or good or bad, verses another regime killing tens of millions - I think it's getting a bit surreal. Dead is dead. Genocide is genocide. Don't think I'm deflecting in any way here by mentioning Stalin - but my experience is that the average guy has a fair understanding or knowledge of Nazi crimes, and at the same time little to no knowledge of Stalin's crimes. Ask Ukrainians about the trajectory for life under Soviet domination, especially from 1928 over the next few years. Or, the multiple millions of people including entire family lines who made up the Gulag system. Reading Stalinist 20th century history is every bit as depressing and appalling as Nazi history, I promise. It's different evil, but vast and hugely sickening.