Tordenskjold Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I know there has been written about this before, but anyway .... What I want the most is a better AI. I love this game, but the bad AI often destroys it for me. Especially when AI attacks. No cover, no plan, no covering fire, just going into certain death. I prefer single player game, but the bad AI makes me often to drop the game for long periods. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The AI will be improved this time by triggers apparently. They added triggers similar I guess to armed assault's triggers. I used to build operation flashpoint missions back in the day with triggers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 BFC are constanly working on the AI. They are aware that their chief customer base is the single player. Part of the price we pay for the complexity and detail of the game is that these things make programming AI exponentially more difficult. Even limited as it is, it's a pretty remarkable achievement. One of the biggest limitations on the AI, especially on the attack, is that it can't use area fire to suppress defensive positions. Of course, giving the AI the discrimination to use area fire effectively is a massively difficult programming task, so this is a weakness we won't see go away any time soon. The first iteration of triggers will make, I think, more difference to the cunning of the AI opponent on the defense than it will to the attack. It will help a little bit to make things interesting for the human defender, sure, but not to the degree it will allow the AI defender to become responsive. As soon as the programming team can squeeze branching into the triggers framework they'll become more useful for the attack. Though even in the first iteration, given that the AI doesn't have to see your forces at trigger locations, they could be used to have different plans available for different defensive dispositions. The AI can be given a "clairvoyant" commander with very good recon abilities... Those VLs you've abandoned will be snapped up by token forces, and maneuver can be adapted to your dispositions. Making the AI look like it's not "cheating" (which, for the first time, you might have some cause to think...) will probably need some consideration... shouldn't be hard to do, by having all the plans have the same first few minutes, and not make the test for presence until the AI's forces could "credibly" have some sort of relvant info about your setup. Won't solve the "all units with the same orders go through the same keyhole and get shot to dogmeat" problem that we folk who just play the scenarios see, but should make the AI much less predictable. In the meantime, since you're not saving scenarios for HvH games, scenarios are a much better bet for a decent AI opponent than QBs, since the plans are much better tailored to the forces and terrain, and the author's had the chance to see exactly how many extra bodies are required to be crammed into the muzzles of your weapons to challenge the defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I love this game, but the bad AI often destroys it for me. Compared to the truly lame AI I have encountered in other games, the AI in CM isn't all that bad. It isn't perfect by a long shot, but I am frequently amazed at how much it does get right. Designing good AI is a formidable task. Entire teams struggle with it in places like MIT, just to name one. When you consider that you have two guys, with one carrying most of the load on this issue I believe, at BFC working on this in addition to all the other programming problems, what they have produced is a small miracle. So yes, there is a great deal of room for improvement. (They still haven't gotten to the point where it will read my mind and know what it is I really want it to do before I do.) But it is probably best not to dwell on that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 BFC are constanly working on the AI. They are aware that their chief customer base is the single player. Part of the price we pay for the complexity and detail of the game is that these things make programming AI exponentially more difficult. Even limited as it is, it's a pretty remarkable achievement. One of the biggest limitations on the AI, especially on the attack, is that it can't use area fire to suppress defensive positions. Of course, giving the AI the discrimination to use area fire effectively is a massively difficult programming task, so this is a weakness we won't see go away any time soon. The first iteration of triggers will make, I think, more difference to the cunning of the AI opponent on the defense than it will to the attack. It will help a little bit to make things interesting for the human defender, sure, but not to the degree it will allow the AI defender to become responsive. As soon as the programming team can squeeze branching into the triggers framework they'll become more useful for the attack. Though even in the first iteration, given that the AI doesn't have to see your forces at trigger locations, they could be used to have different plans available for different defensive dispositions. The AI can be given a "clairvoyant" commander with very good recon abilities... Those VLs you've abandoned will be snapped up by token forces, and maneuver can be adapted to your dispositions. Making the AI look like it's not "cheating" (which, for the first time, you might have some cause to think...) will probably need some consideration... shouldn't be hard to do, by having all the plans have the same first few minutes, and not make the test for presence until the AI's forces could "credibly" have some sort of relvant info about your setup. Won't solve the "all units with the same orders go through the same keyhole and get shot to dogmeat" problem that we folk who just play the scenarios see, but should make the AI much less predictable. In the meantime, since you're not saving scenarios for HvH games, scenarios are a much better bet for a decent AI opponent than QBs, since the plans are much better tailored to the forces and terrain, and the author's had the chance to see exactly how many extra bodies are required to be crammed into the muzzles of your weapons to challenge the defense. Ive often thought about that. The AI's inability to area fire, I mean. Couldn't it be done with a trigger-like system? Scenario designers could include "area fire" markers in the AI plan, and if the AI discovers enemies in those areas they are allowed to area fire in those marked areas for up to 2 turns (or something) after the contact has dissapeared? just a thought. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 When you consider that you have two guys, with one carrying most of the load on this issue I believe, at BFC working on this in addition to all the other programming problems, what they have produced is a small miracle. Michael Woh... are you saying that BFC is essentially a 3 men team (Steve, Charles, Phil)? I assume then that the non-code stuff like UI/Model/Skin is outsourced? Coz otherwise it'd be a extremely heavy workload:rolleyes: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Woh... are you saying that BFC is essentially a 3 men team (Steve, Charles, Phil)? I assume then that the non-code stuff like UI/Model/Skin is outsourced? Coz otherwise it'd be a extremely heavy workload:rolleyes: Yep. Phil and Charles do the vast majority of the engine coding these days, I believe. Steve seems to have his hands full just compiling the TOEs into the game! They have other guys who do the cosmetic stuff, yes, but still, 2 people coding this game (and it was Charles that coded everything solo until relatively recently) is a tiny prgramming team for the job. It's why the game is so cheap for such a niche market. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yep. Phil and Charles do the vast majority of the engine coding these days, I believe. Steve seems to have his hands full just compiling the TOEs into the game! They have other guys who do the cosmetic stuff, yes, but still, 2 people coding this game (and it was Charles that coded everything solo until relatively recently) is a tiny prgramming team for the job. It's why the game is so cheap for such a niche market. Indeed. Also I actually very much appreciate the game's stability. Not ever once did I run into any CTDs in BN/FI or show stopper bugs. Whole thing is in quite a stable and polished state. I've played quite a lotta war games/sims and this wasn't remotely the usual case... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Well let me add, lest they be forgoten, the excellent graphics team of Dan, Fernando and Cassio, plus of course Chris whose role I believe is to be Steve's evil twin and the esteemed business manager Martin. Am I forgetting anyone? Plus there's the priceless beta team who who work for free who I really don't think Battlefront could do without anymore. Does MikeyD work for Battlefront too now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Well let me add, lest they be forgoten, the excellent graphics team of Dan, Fernando and Cassio, plus of course Chris whose role I believe is to be Steve's evil twin and the esteemed business manager Martin. I'm like the Mini-Me to Doctor Evil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I know there has been written about this before, but anyway .... What I want the most is a better AI. I love this game, but the bad AI often destroys it for me. Especially when AI attacks. No cover, no plan, no covering fire, just going into certain death. I prefer single player game, but the bad AI makes me often to drop the game for long periods. So, in fact the AI is in fact perfect in its representation of the sereotypical Red Amry then? Joking aside doesn't it all come down to ho good a scenario designer is at creating AI plans for the scenario within the constraints of the currently availableAI system So, et's analyse this. We would like the AI to act more like the human beings it represents. We would like the units to act in a way that thwe real unit would and we want the system to do militarily sensible things that interact with what we are doing. Whle I daresay the AI is being improved it is probablly unrealistc of us to expect some form of Nirvana, Oh well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Well let me add, lest they be forgoten, the excellent graphics team of Dan, Fernando and Cassio, plus of course Chris whose role I believe is to be Steve's evil twin and the esteemed business manager Martin. Am I forgetting anyone? Plus there's the priceless beta team who who work for free who I really don't think Battlefront could do without anymore. Does MikeyD work for Battlefront too now? Indeed, all those contributors are to be celebrated for letting us have the whole thing, but they don't have to program the AI algorithms... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Does MikeyD work for Battlefront too now? Yes he does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I'm like the Mini-Me to Doctor Evil. I think you mean to say Doctor Eeveel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yes he does. And you claimed you don't know anything about amphibious vehicles. Or is that information restricted only to those who can approach the Holy of Holies, aka the Jar? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 And you claimed you don't know anything about amphibious vehicles. I used the phrase 'compartmentalized information' on that topic. I know what I know, I most definitely don't know what I don't. My jaw hit the floor when hit decals made an appearance... and movie mode lighting... and AAA firing skyward. And the inclusion of wizard of Oz flying monkeys in the Russian TO&E. Oh, I may have just spilled the beans on that secret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 ... and AAA firing skyward. And the inclusion of wizard of Oz flying monkeys in the Russian TO&E. Oh, I may have just spilled the beans on that secret. As I understand it those two were linked. The inclusion of flying monkeys required having the AAA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiterider Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yep, to make a serious AI improvement for a tiny team is an endless work. They would need at least months of exclusive dedication (without new patches, games, etc.). Being realistic I consider this task requires a bigger team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 AI... ah... the bane of any game designer's experience AI programming is the most difficult to do. Even when done right it takes inordinate amounts of time and skill to get marginally good behavior. And I mean compared to other games. Compared to real life it's even worse. The worst part about this for someone that REALLY cares about AI is that gamers do not value AI. By that I mean if a player has a choice between a game at $100 with 20% better AI and a game at $50 with lower quality AI, the player will almost always buy the $50. This is reality. Not just for games in general but also for wargames. Worse, because people hold the AI to unreasonably high "real world" standards, they will never be happy with what is practical to produce. Which means gamers are not going to pay for something significantly better AND they will complain about it just as much as a lower quality AI. Takes all the incentive out of game developers to make better AI, that's for sure That said, we're a little bit dumber than the average game developer when it comes to things like this. Which means we do improve the AI over time, even though we don't increase sales and don't decrease complaints. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiterider Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 AI... ah... the bane of any game designer's experience The worst part about this for someone that REALLY cares about AI is that gamers do not value AI. Takes all the incentive out of game developers to make better AI, that's for sure That said, we're a little bit dumber than the average game developer when it comes to things like this. Which means we do improve the AI over time, even though we don't increase sales and don't decrease complaints. Steve Sad but true . Usually games with a powerful AI have poor graphics, and many games with poor AI have amazing graphics. It´s impossible to get tits and ass (in spanish: Imposible tener teta y culo ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Steve, if you were to stop producing new theatres after RT (and maybe Black Sea; 'pends how far along... ) and get the engine coders working only on AI improvements for "one product cycle", then release the three upgrades at $30 apiece (equivalent to one new theatre at $55 and three $10 upgrades), I think you'd make a lot of people happy. And the "skin" guys can make packs of vehicles that don't need any/much engine input to keep them busy and make more people happy and get your "pack" income stream started (and get a head start on the next theatre's skins maybe)... Or wouldn't "one product cycle" make enough difference in the AI for you to feel comfortable charging "that much" for it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collingwood Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The worst part about this for someone that REALLY cares about AI is that gamers do not value AI. By that I mean if a player has a choice between a game at $100 with 20% better AI and a game at $50 with lower quality AI, the player will almost always buy the $50. This is reality. Not just for games in general but also for wargames. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesman Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Takes all the incentive out of game developers to make better AI, that's for sure That said, we're a little bit dumber than the average game developer when it comes to things like this. Which means we do improve the AI over time, even though we don't increase sales and don't decrease complaints. Steve Welp...I, for one, appreciate the hell out of it. I totally get that it's all overhead, purty close to zero return for that kind of investment of effort. A few others get that, too. And where it all pays off is that the passion you bring to this is clearly not bottom-line-driven, and it shows. Thanks for bringing that drive to your business. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Considering BF is just finally hitting the stride they were shooting for oh so many years ago AND have added the overhead of keeping all post CMBN games current, to ask them to change their strategy and spend more time on resource intensive/financially burdensome work now is like asking them to go back through the same angst they experienced in deciding to go the CMx2 route to begin with. Once is enough for at least a little while longer. Why don't we let them enjoy financial stability for a bit just so they can look back and say "yeah we had that once, for a little while". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Welcome to the Forum, Tor. Who needs to play the game when we have "Bil and Elvis' Big Adventure"? I, for one, have given up the game for Lent. Of course Lent officially ends the day BFC releases Red Thunder. But this thread is not about me. Patience is the key. Even those who dislike the current AI will love what awaits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.