David Stone Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Steve, Charles and the "army" that must be watching this board get slammed every few seconds...... I also would like to see the TacAI loose some of its "eagerness" to switch targets so fast!! Losing LOS may be a factor in my dismay here.... Or me not rotating towards intended targets..... BUT "tweaking" the AI's target thresholds isn't gonna hurt my feelings... Danke PS -- two weeks of vacation at Christmas, and a holiday release (maybe) LIFE IS GOOD!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Dale, not having seen that situation I can't comment. None of our testers, nor us work aholics ), have seen anything like this that can't be explained by something within the game. Testing has been going on since June to some extent, end of September officially. I have faith that something happened that you didn't pick up on or are unaware of (demo doc is good, but slim). We aren't worried. If the problem was truly there, we would be seeing LOTS of instances of TacAI screwups like this. Kraut, I think the unit targeting choices made by the TacAI are simply a matter of preference. I have no problem with it, for example. Many of our testers have come up and said the same thing. They aren't NOT paying attention to this, quite the contrary. They just don't see it as a problem as much as some others. Since a minor tweak might make a few more people happy with it, and will not likely make others unhappy, a small tweak is justified. As for any comparison to Atomic's method of testing... the only thing in common between us is that they also make wargames for computers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 MK said: "Man, reading your responses is always painful. " LOL. Well MK, as you know from other boards I always try to tell it as I see it. It doesn't mean I'm always right but it does mean I'm always telling you the truth as I see it. That's a rare commodity in the review/opinion side of the industry. " Remember, you have a genuine cc-player here, who has only played SP and EF and a few demos of other hex-based wargames before. This player wants control ! This player is GOD of the battlefield ... he needs that fix or he'll die of ego-spatistic-hyper-spasm." Well, the nice thing about humans is that they can ADAPT if they just give themselves a little time . Seriously though MK, yesterday I got one mail in which someone said they had changed their opinion about targetting. Now I'm getting more and more such mails. I'm not saying the values are 100% correct as is but I am saying that most of the problem is that people don't know how to use the commands. I DO have some things in the pipeline to help you all learn how I issue targeting orders.. (Basically apart from ambush markers I let the AI handle the normal targeting since it does such a good job of it and only over-ride for truly important targets. Usually the AI will switch to target the important targets anyway though. "I gotta check out the ambush some more. Maybe after that, i'll come back with more ammunition to fire at you, or i'll be converted and join you in the holy crusade, to enlighten the world with CM." If you haven't been using ambush then I think we've just found the solution. As the defender in these scenarios I'd say 90% of my units are hidden and ambushing at the moment. " A few new scenarios could aid me in my quest for wisdom you know ... " LOL... And the cry for more scenarios goes up ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorsten Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 "LOL... And the cry for more scenarios goes up" Well that's the trick, isn't it? First get them interested with a free beta demo. Then string them along with an occasional additional scenario. After that, toss a final demo at them and then they'll be so hooked that they'll pay $1000 for a copy of the game. Thorsten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hello, here is something from the preview at Games Domain. As you see, these guys feel the same like me if it comes to player control and targeting -------------- [...] "This is actually the part that I have the most trouble with, because games are games and not videos." Don't worry, we're two-thirds of the way into Bruce's "short note" now... but here he hits the nail on the head with an observation about the level of player control in the game, i.e. about how the game feels when you can only watch and pray for 60 long seconds... "This game has some problems (I don't like the lack of targeting control where my units sort of decide when to start and stop firing because I sometimes feel like I don't have enough decisions to make"[...] ------------ And this will be my final posting on this topic Thanks to all who participated, even if we did not agree in all cases Now back to my PBEM, have to kill some tanks... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Fred, I don't know what review at GamesDomain.com mentioned the comments you stated, but "Tim Chown" at Games Domain actually said none of what you have in your post. Here is a link: http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdr.cgi?zones/reviews/pc/oct99/pg3d.html Apologies in advance if I am wrong. Richard Kalajian [This message has been edited by kingtiger (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 Richard, this "second preview opinion" is located in the "Front Line" column of the strategy reviews page by Tim Chown. An interesting read Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 All in all I think the AI does a GREAT job evaluating threats. Much better than anything I have seen before in a PC wargame. But…(you knew that was coming didn't you ) I did however have a bad experience last night that I think perhaps could be corrected by tweaking the AI (not sure really, depends on what criteria you are using to evaluated threats). In the scenario where the Germans are defending I was able to get long (over 250m) LOS to the 88mm ATG on the hill with two M1919 .30 MMGs. This was nice as the combined firepower of both of these MGs should be enough (even at long range) to surpress the ATG crew at least a little and reduce their ROF. Combined with the excellent placement of these MGs (one in a wooded foxhole and the other in a building) I was confident that ATGs days were numbered. What happened during the turn however is that after a single burst from each MG they BOTH decided to switch their fire to INFANTRY targets that were closer. In one case the infantry target was still well over 150m distant (the other was about 100m). Well, needless to say, as soon as they slackened their fire the (damn) 88mm ATG let lose a hail of HE on one of the MGs then swiveled and did the same to the other. If these MGs had been under IMMEDIATE threat of destruction by the infantry they chose to attack I would have no issue with the AI's behavior. As it is their primary threat WAS the target I assigned to them…and they ignored my orders to their peril. I can see the same thing happening if I had had AFVs in LOS of the 88 also. Perhaps distance to the (prospective) target should play a smaller role in the AI's decision to switch targets? I want to reiterate that is the one and only time in 2 games that I thing the AI made a serious mistake above and beyond that which a human in its place (i.e. a soldier on the ground) would make. Thanks for listening. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I have posted several times on the re-targeting issue in another thread (one by Hagen, I believe). I won't repeat all I said there. I would, however, make three points: First and most fundamentally, we need to have an understanding of the level of command being simulated. We are all agreed (I think!) that CM attempts to allow the player to simulate more than simply a company or battalian commander. Is the game designed to allow the player to simulate ALL levels of command from team leader to squad leader to platoon leader to company commander to battalian commander? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is primarily limited to carrying the units through the 60 second period when the player cannot micromanage. On the other hand, is the game designed to simulate only platoon leader and higher level command? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is to determine how squads and teams will carry out the platoon leaders' general orders. If the player fills the shoes of all levels of command (i.e., down to team leader), then the orders being overridden are the orders of the team leader. If the player is (at his lowest incarnation) a platoon leader, then the orders being overridden are external to the team/squad. In my mind, this is a HUGE difference. If I am the team or squad leader and I ORDER my team or squad (in perfect symbiosis with my platoon/company/battalian incarnation) to target a particular unit or area, it should be an incredibly rare circumstance that the order is ignored. In my view, the only circumstances justifying a change would be a direct threat to my team/squad or destruction or disappearance of the target. In other words, my order should NEVER otherwise be disregared for a "juicier" target. If I am (at my lowest level) only a platoon leader, then my squad should have more latitude to disregard the corporate plan, so to speak, dependent on a number of factors, including the team/squad leader's traits, command and control, and unit quality. Because I have always thought of myself in CM as being all the team/squad/platoon/company leaders rolled up into one (unrealistic as it must be), I express my displeasure with re-targeting (except in the rare circumstances identified above). If BTS clearly states the lowest level of command being filled by the player is the platoon leader, we clear up much of this debate. If BTS states that we also represent team/squad leaders, then I think Kraut and others, including myself, have a virtually irrefutable argument that re-targeting should be reduced (regardless of whether player targeting decisions evidence poor tactics, etc., etc., etc...). (Nothing about this would change the fact that if a player does not issue specific targeting commands, the TacAI will continue to target the highest and best default priorities.) Second, Fionn and others have made statements and declarations about when the TacAI will re-target based on their own observations, BUT, BTS has never really explained the circumstances under which the TacAI is allowed to disregard targeting orders, other than making general statements about self-preservation and juicier opportunity targets. If we had a better understanding of the guts of the TacAI's decision-making process (i.e., the mathematical formula), we would be better able to understand and then either accept or debate the re-targeting decisions. Please Note: I am NOT criticizing Fionn, BTS, or others. I appreciate the time and input they have provided in this and other threads. I am merely pointing out that for purposes of the debate, we really have nothing firm to go on. We are all just talking about our individual anecdotal observations (though some obviously have many more such observations under their belt). The third thing I wanted to include in this post is really a question to BTS: Do the teams/squads have any memory of the player's targeting order? I suspect not, but would be pleased to hear otherwise. I mention it for this reason: If a unit can "remember" that you told it to target a particular squad, then when the target-squad disappears behind cover (perhaps because suppressed or perhaps because it is moving) but reappears from behind the cover in 2-30 seconds (or whatever), the player's team/squad may acquire a different target, but would return to the deliberately targeted unit when it reappears. If this type of "memory" can be readily programmed (though I doubt it would be quick and easy enough for ver. 1.0), it might be a decent compromise of some of the issues raised. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thoughtful thread. I have not intended to offend anyone. My apologies in advance if I have done so inadvertently. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I have to shut down this thread because it is too big. However, there is another discussion that dovetails nicely with the last bit of this thread. Check out the thread: www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001261.html Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts