Glubokii Boy
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Glubokii Boy
-
-
1 hour ago, BornGinger said:
Time to wake this thread up with a question.
How is it with AI triggers and quick battles? Don't they have any function in quick battles?
I'm making a quick battle map and painted an "AI Trigger (enemy)" line and after that did a test in Author Mode with my troops reaching and thus activating that trigger just to see that the AI-group didn't react.
Try 'trigger friendly'....
-
What has been annonced is not a NEW game engine but rather an updated version of the current one, CM2.
We are currently playing version 4 of that engine.
The update is not years away. It's scheduled to be released this year.
The new game engine that people are talking about is CM3...and that one probably is quite some time away...
-
2 hours ago, wham said:
You make it sound easy, but somehow I feel that if it was quite so easy it would already have been done a decade ago. Hence I suspect there is more to it all.
It is simple
...
You don't have to start anything from scratch. Simply load the player attack scenario into the editor and do the neccesary tweaks and save it under a different name....
for example...
Battle for the reichtag (A)
Battle for the reichtag (D)
A = player attack version D = player defence version
For example...
Player attack version...
The player attacks with a fairly depleted battalion supported by 2 StuGs and 5 PzIVs.
Player defence version...
The AI attacks with a full (atleast almost) battalion supported by 4 StuGs and 8 PzIvs.
In the player defence version improve the experience of some of the attacking the attacking russians, increase the leaderskills of some of the leaders...Perhaps add some extra troops like a platoon of engineers or something...
Changes like these will not all of a sudden make the AI super bright but it will most certainly improve its chanses somewhat...Take the pain of designing a fairly competent AI planfor the attacking russians as opposed to the way things seems to be now...A very simple one in the AI attack versions.
The map, the briefingscreen, the research etc, etc can remain pretty much the same....minor changes only at the most.
I can think a few reasons for this not having been done prior.
1. Not historically correct any more...Solution...make the player attack version historically correct and mention in the designernotes for the player defence version that some liberties have been taken with the historical accuracy in order to make the AI more challeging.
2. A risk off cluttering the games scenario folder with 'to many' scenarios....solution...NOT a problem !
What could make this take some more time as opposed to the current situation is the fact that the current player defence versions seems to have a very simple AI planwith limited testing. If the goal is to improve the AI behavior then the AI plan would need to be more seriously developed and tested....that might take some more time...true.
But the increased quality of the product would make it worth it imo...
-
3 minutes ago, wham said:
Two scenarios = double the work designing and testing scenarios
No...it is not
The map is done, the research is done, most of the unit rosters are done...
And remember...
In a two option scenario you need an AI plan for both sides also....No Major increase in work to make one AI plan each for two scenarios rather than two AI plans for one scenario...
-
20 minutes ago, wham said:
If anything can be done in the current engine and level of AI, I think these tools might be key to creating interesting attack/defend scenarios that are playable as either side against the AI. However, this is speculation on my part, as I've never really studied the AI planning tools in any depth.
Imo the easiest way to improve these scenarios is to release two versions of the same scenario...rather than having both sides playable in the same scenario...with the same units....
These two option scenarios are doomed to failure...it is in no way realistic to expect the AI to be able to conduct an attack with the same forces as a human player gets when playing the same side....
We need two seperate scenarios. Each tailored to significantelly favour the AI regardless if it is playing the attacker or the defender...
Give the AI some extra units as opposed to what the player gets from playing that side...remove some of the player forces...tweak the softfactors like moral and experience to favour the AI...
Giving the AI a few buffs will increase the overall challange and funfactor of the scenarios.
-
7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Future replies won't be answered.
Answer or no answer...i will just end by mentioning that any of my replies have not been directed at you personally...but generaly at any player.
And while discussing the quality/challange of the AI i don't think that a statement like this...
9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:You play the game as defender to win is easy press the cease fire button and you end up with a 'Major Victory.
might be a fair description of the AI quality. If a player does that he is not even giving the AI the chans to win. Offering a human player a cease fire is one thing because he can reject it. The AI rarely will...Doing so would be cheaing the scenario and the result can never be considdered a 'major victory'. But you are correct though that i and i guess most others would do the same thing if we get bored. But a victory ? NO...
37 minutes ago, BornGinger said:It seems to me that you should avoid playing the scenarios and quick battles against the AI and spend most of your time on TheFewGoodMen and TheBlitz so you can play against human opponents.
That is obviously the right way to do it if you want a real challange but H2H may not be an option for every player....for various reasons.
-
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:
You play the game as defender to win is easy press the cease fire button and you end up with a 'Major Victory.
Prematurely pressning the ceasefire button in a defensive scenario is not a win...it's cheating
...
Anyway....the point i'm trying to make is not primarely about tactics as the defender....but about the current difficulty in designing an AI attacking scenario...
And the fact that you as a player needs to tweak these scenarios into more of a meeting engagemang or even yet another player attack scenario in order to enjoy them seems to me to be yet another indicator to the fact that these player defensive scenarios are not working....
-
On 1/13/2021 at 1:14 PM, Bufo said:
Hope not.
1 sided battles are just not that fun.
It gives the game some 'personality'...
All the WW2 games for example plays fairly simularely...
It's nice to have something different...
-
Thanks for running this test....intresting results.
But the simple truth is as I have stated above. Designing good player defensive scenarios is difficult...even if the goal is to design a dedicated player defensive scenario (no option to play as the attacker).
The tools to do so are simply to limited right now.
To design a player defence version of an initially designed offensiven scenario is...not possible ! Not a good one atleast. The demands on the AI will be far above its capabilities. This fact is known by the stock scenario designers and consequently they don't have the intrest, time or energy to commit fully to include a GOOD defensive version of their scenarios. Simply because it can not be done...
These defensive versions (for the most part) i belive have very simple AI plans and have seen very limited playtesting i'm betting....simply because there is no reason to do othervise...
They will not work and very few will ever play them with the goal of getting a challeging fight...so why invest lots and lots of time developing them.
They are included simply because they have to be...as required by BFC.
-
13 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
You can give both sides objectives. Read the Battle of Long Tan an NVA Regiment vs an Australian Company (D Company 6RAR). The defense was concluded with an Australian counterattack. M113 APC's combined with NZ 105 mm Artillery. Waiting in the rain for the next NVA attack was poor tactics. Do something unexpected has surprising results. Nothing strange of having a counterattack in your scenario.
No it is nothing strange with counterattacking per say...but to have an AI attacking force rely on (wait for) a player counterattack before proceeding would be strange imo...
As the attacker you do not voluntarely want to give the initiative to the defender and then having to react to that. It is the defender that is supposed to react to your actions...not the other way around.
-
5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
You need to counterattack and give the defender a touch objective. Even in real life you just don't sit at your position.
No...You do not need to counterattack. The goal of the attacker (AI) is to achive its objective...not to sit an wait for some flipping counterattack.
If the attacking AI troops are not moving forward and the reason for this is the lack of a player (defender) counterattack...that would be a very strange scenariodesign.
-
Wham....
I belive that most of the issiues you are seeing comes from the fact that the majority (if not all) of these scenarios has from the start been designed to be played as the attacker. The reason there is a player defensive option comes from BFCs demands that all scenarios should be playable from both sides....but i'm guessing that most of the designers have added this option simply because they had to...to mest the demands from Battlefront.
These player defensive scenarios have not been designed with a full commitment to design good defensive fighting....they are simply a neccsary biproduct of the original player attack scenario....
To be able to judge what the attacking AI is currently able to do you will need to play a scenario that has been purposly designed to be played as the defender...
In these scenarios all efforts have been made to make the AI attack as good as the current gamerngine will allow.
I don't remember if CMFB has any such senarios included though...
-
32 minutes ago, BornGinger said:
That's the reason to why it's good to use all, or most of, the 16 AI-groups in quick battles
It most certainly is...as it is in scenarios...I always do
But 16 AI groups it not enough. Thats one of the points that we 'more scripting tools'-guys have been saying for years now...
It might be enough for a reinforced company on the attack at best or a battalion on the defence...but if the AI attacks with a reinforced company then the player can not be allowed much more then a platoon or maybe two to command (but that would be pushing it)...playing with a single platoon might be a bit on the small side to make for a fun scenario...
Increasing the amount of AI groups to atleast 32 would make even attacking battalions a possibility.
-
ASL Veteran....my comment wasn't an attack on you...sorry if it came out that way !
...
It was ment to show the limitations of the editor...and not any shottcommings on your part.
I apprisiate your work...as well as that of the other stock designers....thanks
But your comment also highlights one other designgoal of BFC that might need some considderation...
- the fact that ALL stock scenarios have to be playable from both sides.
The simple fact is that a scenario that has primarely been designed to provide the player with a good challange as the attacker can't do the same with the player as the defender...the AI will be far to underpowered to handle such a task....such in your scenario above.
Ones again...it is not your fult ! It's a gameengine limitation...
-
If not even scenario designers assosiated with BFC and tasked with designing the stock scenarios can get the AI attack to work even half decently....
There has to be something wrong here
-
36 minutes ago, BornGinger said:
This thread is not about whether the AI is able to attack in a good way. What wham is mentioning in the first post is that the AI-attacking forces don't move from their setup positions to begin the attack but stay there as if they have a supply problem or as if they all have the runs.
But they did move...not much granted...but they did move...
In a not all impressive way as I understand.
This is part of the problem with the current AI programing...especially on the attack...
The unpredictability if the AI behavior...
I currently don't have that game so i'm unable to check the AI planning out.....
What is the size of the AI groups ? What are their initial orders (as set in the editor) ? What does the timing options look like for the initial orders.
Having to large AI groups can lead to some really wierd AI behavior...the moral status of the troops if they take fire can lead to rather long delays and messe up attacks...
The larger the AI group the bigger the problem...
-
It has been a known fact for many years that the AI is incapable of conducting a good attack. The current tools in the editor does not allow for such an attack to be designed.
The number of AI attacking scenarios that have been designed in the last couple of years are very few...and the number of GOOD AI attacking scenarios are even fewer.
A very small group of the most experienced and skilled designers might be able to design a decent AI attack scenario...but it is indeed very, very difficult to do right now...
Atleast if you want the defending player to command anything larger then a platoon...
If the defending player commands a company...then the AI would need to attack with a reinforced battalion. Something that it is completally incapable of commanding in anything that recembles a good way.
The quality and limitations of the AI is a discussion that has been ongoing for many years. Strangely quite a few of the members on this forum refuse to admit that the AI is lacking and don't seem to care about the fact that the current option for a human player is to play as the attacker...only !
If he wants a good fight...
I find this kind of strange...we are currently only playing 'half' a game....As the attacker.
Vs the AI the option to play as the defender does almost not exist.
As a defender the AI can be a challange for sure and usually performs fairly well but on the attack....NO, NO, NO
The claim made by a few that the AI actually does fairly well if left on its own (not scripted) is utterly ridicculus...to name a few shortcommings...
On its own...
- it does not use smoke (mid, late game)
- its indirect support is often badely timed and at times even badely targeted.
- It makes poor use of special weapons such ad flamethrowers, panzerschrecks and snipers.
- it will never area fire (with direct fire weapons) on likely enemy possitions.
- it very rarely possitions...and repossitions its base of fire supporting weapons in good possitions. They kind of just tag along.
- the AI overall situational awareness is very limited as is its understanding of the terrain.
- it does not reinforce succes or abandones failure.
- limited vehicle - infantry cooperation.
- it has no understanding of dangerareas but often sigg, saggs its way forward in and out of cover.
A brunch of members here are advocating for improved scriptingtools...to be able to help the AI to perform better...but others do not agree...
Different people wants different things I guess...but as some are suggesting...that we should aim for less micromanaging (scripting) is not very realistic imo...
Not with the current gameengine...and since v.5 of this engine has just been annonced i doubt we will see CM3 for atleast a few years yet.
A more selfcontrolling AI might possibly be a thing with CM3...maybe.
But lets first work with what we have got...that is CM2...
Improved scripting seems far more realistic to me atleast...hopefully we will get some with v.5.
Playing as the defender is...fun afterall. If faced by a decent advisary.
Even if that is not a human.
-
13 hours ago, benpark said:
It's already an amazing tool, and amazingly conceived to start with. I suggest things sometimes, and then realize it is already possible- in some form. There are a few things that could make it both easier to use, and be a bit more effective at replicating a human.
The editor may not be complicated and generally good but that does not mean that it needs no further development.
Why not make in even more good and even less complicated...
Hopefully we will see fewer of these in the future...
On 1/6/2021 at 3:56 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:This is always a dilemma.....I know what you are spending your time on and I'd much rather you did that!
I'm in a similar position myself.....Time spent trying to diagnose WTF is going on here is time not spent making wonky islands or writing fiddly AI scripts that may or may not work as intended!
On 1/6/2021 at 3:57 PM, Macisle said:I can see the benefits of variation, but from the designer's perspective, it's a PITA. It produces a need for wasteful testing time. A much better system would be for the designer to have total control, but the option to add his own, chosen variations, like with different AI Plans.
On 1/6/2021 at 4:13 PM, Macisle said:Yup. I still have PTSD from all the hours of getting the opening AI attack orchestrated in the Radzy Award. Between the arty and trying to fit a reinforced battalion's advance under only 9 minutes of smoke was...well...I just don't want to think about it anymore...
-
53 minutes ago, benpark said:
I'll add anything we may have missed to the list, as AI stuff is very (very) high on my own hopes for adds.
Show them who is the boss
-
The way i see it is...Combat Mission is a TACTICAL SIMULATOR...
The majority of the other, prettier games are TACTICAL GAMES...
What I wan't to play is a....
TACTICAL SIMULATOR !
That's why i'm here
...
-
It would be kind of neat if you could have a building fortrification kit as a unit... to be deployed in the setup face of the scenario simply by clicking on the desired building....to turn it into a fortrified area.
-
-
If not search for smartwargames on Youtube...his got it all it seems
-
check through this guys playlist
...
(I hope the link worked)
AI plans and a more responsive AI
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I belive that the terrain objective you are using for the trigger should be...
- Friendly in zone
Not eneny...
Its your troops moving into it...