Jump to content

How much would you pay for an improved AI upgrade


womble

How much would you pay for an AI-only upgrade  

129 members have voted

  1. 1. With branching triggers, including "NOT"s and casualty levels

  2. 2. With better situational/contextual awareness and tactical flex

  3. 3. How many of the game families you own would you upgrade?



Recommended Posts

Well you yourself said how much of an outcry there are for these features. So much so its up setting to you guys. All we can do as consumers is let our voice be heard to the service provider. If there is that much of an issue with the ai that 1/4 of threads discuss it, mabey it should be discussed.

I don't see that much of an outcry, perhaps partly because so few players actually participate much on the forum.  I do see a bunch of folks repeating themselves.and completely ignoring all of Steve's previous replies on the matter.  I wouldn't say I find it upsetting, but I do find it odd that a group of people who analyze down to the stitching in the uniforms for detail can't seem to follow a repeated statement from the owners of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I myself, haven't seen these statements. Also, I'm not repeating myself as I have only expressed myself about the AI before in 1 other thread. I'm not going on about the AI in this thread, just suggesting Kick starter to give them funds to give them some buffer money to have the time to make these changes. I also would rather have the developers spend time improving the game than have a few old fart wana be historians\couch Pattons demand proper stitching on uniforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. OK perhaps my post was slightly harsh but thee was nothing personal in there and I certainly never meant to tell anyone to F off. Sorry you took it that way.

But come on you are comparing an open environment like Arma that does not have a playable tactical simulation that I can go to a website and buy / down right away and start playing against the AI this afternoon. To a game that can do that. A several months ago when Arma came up I had a look and could not find anything that was even close to CM. If I am missing something please point me in the river direction.

But kindly keep your insults to your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. OK perhaps my post was slightly harsh but thee was nothing personal in there and I certainly never meant to tell anyone to F off. Sorry you took it that way.

But come on you are comparing an open environment like Arma that does not have a playable tactical simulation that I can go to a website and buy / down right away and start playing against the AI this afternoon. To a game that can do that. A several months ago when Arma came up I had a look and could not find anything that was even close to CM. If I am missing something please point me in the river direction.

But kindly keep your insults to your self.

 

It sounds like you need to learn to work the editor. You can download it, and open the editor, and away you go right away.

Edited by Stagler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Download what? I could not find a ready to download game. It felt like I had to dig for bits and pieces. Like I said it suddenly felt like I was missing something obvious. Either that or the game is.

Open the editor? You mean I need to desk my own scenarios? :D

oh c'mon now, of course you don't.  Just select the QB option.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long thread and I haven't the time to read it all but here are my thoughts.

 

a ) Are the improvements largely obvious such as tweaks to the existing scripted AI plans system that just require some coding time to implement? If so I am all in favour and would be prepared to pay for an upgrade.

 

or

 

b ) Are the improvements largely conceptual, meaning they would need to be "designed" as well as "built"? If so I am not in favour as I think it would become a massive time sink and might not even deliver anything worthwhile.

 

I would like the AI side of things to be looked at again because having designed a scenario recently I have noticed several things that could easily be made better. For example...

 

1) Ability to determine unit facing at each waypoint.

2) Ability to order a vehicle to "reverse" to its next waypoint,

3) Implement passenger orders better so they are plotted by the AI whilst the passengers are still mounted, so that they start moving as soon as they dismount. Currently after reaching a "Passengers Dismount" waypoint the passengers wait until next turn to get out and until the turn after that to actually start moving. That is not how a human would handle those orders.

Edited by Cpl Steiner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long thread and I haven't the time to read it all but here are my thoughts.

 

a ) Are the improvements largely obvious such as tweaks to the existing scripted AI plans system that just require some coding time to implement? If so I am all in favour and would be prepared to pay for an upgrade.

 

or

 

b ) Are the improvements largely conceptual, meaning they would need to be "designed" as well as "built"? If so I am not in favour as I think it would become a massive time sink and might not even deliver anything worthwhile.

The way I was looking at it in my head when I was framing the questions, the first option in the poll of branching triggers would be a "tweak" kindof option. Adding your (and other) suggestions for enhancing the scripting system for AI plans would, I'd imagine, also be "straightforward" to code and test (never forget the testing... :) )

 

The second option would need some additional capabilities designing in, so would fit your "b)".

 

If that's any help to casting a vote if you haven't already.

 

I like your suggestions. The first two would, I guess, be enhancements to the creation of AI plans, whereas the third would be an enhancement to the "executive" AI that does the waypoint plotting to execute the Plan orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I was looking at it in my head when I was framing the questions, the first option in the poll of branching triggers would be a "tweak" kindof option. Adding your (and other) suggestions for enhancing the scripting system for AI plans would, I'd imagine, also be "straightforward" to code and test (never forget the testing... :) )

 

The second option would need some additional capabilities designing in, so would fit your "b)".

 

If that's any help to casting a vote if you haven't already.

 

I like your suggestions. The first two would, I guess, be enhancements to the creation of AI plans, whereas the third would be an enhancement to the "executive" AI that does the waypoint plotting to execute the Plan orders.

 

I have voted now.

 

Re. "passengers" I cannot believe that this could not be done straight away in a patch. I think the way it is implemented now is to give the vehicle a "Dismount" command at its "Passengers Dismount" waypoint, and then to give the unit dismounted a move order next turn, once it is no longer mounted. A human would not do this - they would instead give the move order to the passengers whilst the vehicle was moving to its drop off location. As soon as the vehicle stops the unit will then automatically dismount and move off towards its next waypoint. The way it is done now is just crazy and can result in loss of vehicle and all passengers when dropping off troops close to the enemy.

 

The other two suggestions - "Reverse" option and "Facing" option - would help for orders intended to make units fall back, such as rearguard actions and raids requiring the unit to exit its friendly map edge. When testing my scenario the order to exit the map resulted in my vehicles turning their rear to face the enemy whilst they waited for the order to advance off the map.

 

"Reverse" could actually be applied to both infantry and vehicles. You could have it as a "Fall Back" option in the menu that has "Advance", "Assault" and "Max Assault". "Fall Back" would cause the AI engine to issue a reverse order for vehicles, or a series of "quick" orders with a "face" order in the opposite direction at each "quick" waypoint for infantry.

Edited by Cpl Steiner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think the AI uses face orders. It usually just orders a large ring circle engagement angle around the unit.

It doesn't use TAs at all, at the moment. It just leaves the unit pointing in a default direction relative to previous or next intended movement. Unless it's been given a specific engagement range using one of the Ambush options, when its TA is, indeed, circular, AIUI. Absent an Ambush order, they just have the default "shoot at anything" fire discipline and will open up at whatever the AI has been told is the "effective range" for their given weapon, exactly as your pTruppen will if left to their own devices.

 

edit: not that this couldn't do with some tweaking. But to have it handled by the AI would certainly require inclusion of some concept of "context" in the AI's algorithms, which is currently entirely absent, and could be extremely hard to do well in the environment, while to have more detailed micromanagement of facing (which tends also to imply the intent of the plan) added into the AI scripting options for the plans in Scenarios/QB Maps wouldn't require the development of AI "judgements", just potentially more work for designers, though the possible workarounds needed to compensate for the addled directionality of the orders as it stands could be considered to offset that.

Edited by womble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you wont get any of ARMA without steam now. So I guess its a complete right off for you.

 

Probably why you couldn't find/purchase it.

 

I see.  So the only way to find the game is on Steam?  Interesting I would have thought google would have turned something up but I guess that does explain why nothing popped as an item I could buy and play just references to bits and pieces. Well perhaps some day when I have more free time I'll want to investigate further - Steam first, I'll remember that.

 

Thanks

Edited by IanL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simpler solution would be for BFC to hire a slew of h2h/pbem players, keep them in a server farm, and have a ready opponent for anyone turning on the game.

 

Failing that, yeah, I'd love to see a lot of these suggestions get incorporated into the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"A simpler solution would be for BFC to hire a slew......." 

 

God, I hope not. Some of us actually don't want to play vs. Human.  All I would love to see is more triggers & functions similar to what Human current gets (TAs for example), and ability to randomize more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...