Getting the best out of the AI

[Guest Username:]

The more I play the demo (just assume this is a spoiler) the more I get disappointed in the AI. It really cannot attack.

While I like the game enough and realize that email play would still be OK, it is a big let down that CM can not give a decent showing for itself. It was hyped that the AI was going to be better than the other demo.

I usually give the AI extra forces and leave FOW off. Believe it or not it helps the AI more than me. When the AI has arty and the FOW is off, he seems to get more kills. He can even target my units that are completely out of its LOS it seems.

I just played CE with the germans getting 5 stugs and the AI can not use them to any good effect. Its a shooting gallery and not a battlefield.

I am trying to be charitable here but I cant believe it was playtested by so many human players against the AI or were they playing each other?

Lewis

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username::

The more I play the demo (just assume this is a spoiler) the more I get disappointed in the AI. It really cannot attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I think you have a point here, I would reserve my final judgment until I have seen the AI perform in a scenario I start blind, and where it has to attack a set defense. In CE as the US or Germans, it tends to bunch up. While the Beta problem of leading an attack with the invincible combination of a HQ unit, a Bazooka team and a mortar section following each other in a sufficient distance to give the defenders time to slaughter the preceding one has been solved, it still does piece-meal attacks. I have not seen it in VoT yet, as I am playing that double-blind (thanks to all those posting spoilers without warning, BTW), but I look forward to that and see how it performs there. I don't think that any AI judgements should be based on CE, honestly.

------------------

Andreas

[Ash]

I've got no real complaints so far for the AI it performs admirably. The first time I played VOT it gave me a run for my money.

------------------

The names Ash, Housewares

[Guest Big Time Software]

whoops! Double post

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-16-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

I have said this about 100000000000 times before, but obviously it is not getting through. You can not judge the AI's performance using a scenario that you have played even ONCE before. Sorry, but that is totally unfair and actually irrelevant since with the full game you will never ever have to replay the same battle.

As for improvements in the AI vs. the Beta Demo, many were made. Sorry if they let you down, but there is only so much we can do. Does the AI attack perfectly? Nope, and it never will. I typed up a response to your last post on this subject. Basically you are asking far too much from us (or any game developer) and not looking at this relatively compared to other wargames.

Compare CM's AI with *any* other tactical based game, war or otherwise. There is no AI out there better than CM's from what we have seen. I welcome you to prove me wrong on this point.

Is CM's AI as good as a human? Nope, and it never will be as I have said over and over again. So please readjust your expectations for what the AI can in fact do because they are, in my opinion, as unreasonable as they are unrealistic. And because of that, irrelevant because there is only so much that we can do.

Steve

P.S. No, the AI can not target your units out of LOS. Not possible.

[Moon]

Lewis, the AI is just that - an ARTIFICIAL intelligence. It cannot and will not replace a human player.

The AI has been tested countless times, in all of the 50 or so scenarios and operations coming with the game.

Although you are entitled to your opinion (as is anybody else), I think saying that "CM cannot give a decent showing for itself" is just not true. I don't know of any other wargame which features an AI that can punish you for your mistakes at even odds. CM's AI can and will do that, and it does so without being scripted and therefore is capable of doing it in ANY of the user generated or randomly generated scenarios.

When you turn off FOW, you are able to see ALL enemy units, regardless of LOS. You can also target ALL enemy units with your artillery, regardless of FOW. So can the AI. Makes sense when you think about it, no?

You say: "I just played CE with the germans getting 5 stugs and the AI can not use them to any good effect. Its a shooting gallery and not a battlefield."

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you sould give more details than that.

Martin

[Guest Username:]

Just to be clear..I downloaded the Gold Demo and booted it up and saw two scenarios. I chose Valley as the Germans and didnt even read the scenario info.

I didnt do much of anything till the Panther showed up. I won without even trying.

As far as artificial intelligence. Is Moon saying its artificial ignorance? Then I agree. It is not coordinating its actions or using basic principles of fire and movement.

IF:

You are being fired at..

THEN:

Suppress, Smoke, Shuffle somewhere else.

IF:

Firepower aganst you decreases..

THEN:

Move a little

IF NOT:

Try somewhere else

I dont expect it to fake my jock off, just suppress my obvious firepower before marching 50 cals and 60mm mortar forward.

Not saying it isnt fun. I want the game for fast, fun, challenging firefights without waiting for an oponant to email me back. I aint getting it. Too bad.

Lewis

[Ash]

Yes Username you might have won easily but how many casualties did you take?

[Guest grunto]

--There is no AI out there better than CM's from what we have seen. ---

CM's AI will punish you if you're not careful. I've only attacked though. If a person really wants to see a pathetic attack, fire up Close Combat and watch that AI.

CM's AI is the best I've seen in a computer game. If the AI is a crummy attacker, play a scenario and boost the other side to 150%, then try defending against that.

FWIW

Andy

[Mile Teg]

I strongly disagree with Lewis. I think the AI is exceptional. I've seen it perform some intuitive actions.

*lookin' at the games I own*

Nope, I own no game with a AI as strong as CM. What some FPS bots? Nawh, I don't think.

Moreover, I chuckle lookin' at those, by a company whose motto is: 'chock full of nuclear goodness!'

CM exceeds my expectations.

[Guest Username:]

Just to be clear I had Fog Of War ON the first time I played Valley and I had a surrender soon after driving the panther up and down the hills at will. I cant remember the casualties to be honest.

I am saying now (since I am experienced) that to have the FOW OFF helps the AI. I hope thats not vague at this point.

I REPEAT THE AI SEEMS TO USE ITS ARTY PRETTY GOOD THEN..

I think 'grunto' needs to say that he thinks CM's AI is the best in the wargame world. I work in realtime control and you dont have a clue what real AI can do. Fuzzy logic used in a control situation easily outperforms even expert human control. The difference here (as far as I can see) is that there is such a large decision tree that BTS is trying to accomplish. There is an acronym I want to share 'KISS' (Keep It Simple Stupid).

I was impressed by the Ardennes game (SSG?) it had a good AI but it was obviously on a different level. Since BTS will evidently not share many mathematical formulae, I cant imagine them discussing their 'fits' (fuzzy term).

Lewis

PS Heres a proposal. (Listen first then resist kneejerking BTS). Fix the game so the HUMAN has FOW but the AI doesnt as an option. I think it puts a little challenge into the equation.

[citizen]

+ VoT spoilers +

I've seen the AI do some really smart things...

I'm playing VoT as Germans with Allies having a +50% edge. My 75 is in the default position and for 3 turns was getting the runaround by 2 Shermans. They would alternately creep out into LOS, fire twice, then pop smoke and reverse behind cover. The 75's slow traverse tried to keep up, but failed. I had to call in a bunch of smoke to keep the bunker out of their LOS.

Meanwhile the troops are attacking massed -not piecemeal. The AI sent out scouts, found my barbed wire (and possibly my AP minefield) and rerouted his troops to avoid them.

Matt

[SS_PanzerLeader]

UserName said:

Just to be clear..I downloaded the Gold Demo and booted it up and saw two scenarios. I chose Valley as the Germans and didnt even read the scenario info.

I didnt do much of anything till the Panther showed up. I won without even trying.

well I'll be straight up - I'm finding this REAL HARD TO SWALLOW. God' I feel I'm in the presence of Rommel himself! Does anyone else seem to see an overinflated egotistical attitude at work here>? I'm not trying to flame you in anyway, this reply is just based on consistant posting by you at how great your play is!

I consider myself a decent player -I'm no where near as good at CM as I was at CC2 (yet that is ) But I just fired up Vot and I waited like you claimed you did when ya "EFFORTLESSLY" smoked the AI, Ya know what>? I BARELY was able to scrape a TACTICAL vict out of this and the Panther saved my ass even though it was immobilized.

Sorry the AI rocks for a wargame BETTER than ANY before it - I jsut think you got a BIG CHIP ON YOU SHOULDER - so quit trashing it until you can back it up - cause frankly I'm sick of hearing you berate BTS and CM and everyone else. It seems to me you were just warned yet you still have to take another dig - and this post by you is IMHO ; a dig in sheeps clothing

*sorry all rant mode off*

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Lee]

I think the AI does an excellent job, much better than any other

AI out there. And just because you got lucky on your first run in VoT

doesn't mean you won't get stomped by the AI in the next blind

scenario you play aginst it or barely pull out a win. You can't

judge the AI by one blind scenario game. Play 10 more blind battles

against the AI and see how they all go. I doubt you'll find them

all so easy.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

Trying to compare a control system that probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to program, running on specialized hardware (most likely, designed to do a very limited number of highly controled activities is totally out there. Sure, the fuzzy logic in my cam corder keeps a more steady picture than I could with my hand. But can it make me take better home movies? So I guess it sucks then?

I ask you again, what other tactical war or strategy game out there has better AI than CM? If you can't think of one then perhaps there might be a reason? SSG's level of warfare is much easier. And after having participated in a roundtable discussion on AI with the SSG guys several years ago I am pretty sure their AI "bends the rules" (cheats).

The fact that CM's AI doesn't play as well as a human is not because we have made it overly complex. That is really a silly statement because the only way to make the AI better is to make it more complex. Everything needs rules, so the more things you have in the game the more rules you need. That means complexity.

If you start with the expectation that the AI *should* be as good as a human player then you will never be happy with what we can actually do. The reason is that the real world is so much more rich and complex than can be simulated with a few months of AI programming. If it were that simple we would all be playing games that exceed human capabilities no problem. The fact that we aren't should tell you that you have unreasonable expectations for what we can do.

I am not saying that CM's AI couldn't be better. Of course it could be. But to trash the AI based on the standards of human play is unacceptable. If we could program AI that good we wouldn't be wasting our time with wargames. Instead we would be raking in billions of dollars designing control systems to run the world's industries at the managerial level. That is the sort of thing you are comparing CM to and it is simply not productive.

Turning off FoW for the AI? In theory it can be done, although I have no idea how hard it would be to program. It is also cheating, obviously. We thought about doing this a long time ago but decided against it (can't remember why though).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-16-2000).]

[Lanzfeld]

Look...Username......I can find a few "imperfections" with the AI too. I do agree that in the VOT battle the AI does send in squads to attack piecemeal sometimes and I would like to see it mass a platoon with an HQ unit and attack in force. But for the MOST part it does do this. I see the AI drop down MG's on the southern hill to cover the attacking squads. I even had the AI LEVEL the town of Plomvillle (sp?) with arty because I had two reinforced platoons there and it did it with FOW on! That is exactly what I would have done!!! My point is...it is the best AI that I have seen for the PC. I accept Steves explanation and I very much praise BTS for this revolutionary combat simulator. Calling it a game does it no justice. Enjoy it......or I wish you luck with your ulser.

[Seanachai]

When I first picked up the Demo of CM, I didn't have much hope for the AI, as this is one of the most difficult areas of programming, and where games normally fall down. I have to say, I've been very impressed with the AI so far. It doesn't seem as strong on attack, but still does a very reputable job. Also, I didn't expect the AI to play as well as a human, and I don't think anyone who isn't wilfully naive could expect it either. I mean, really, it's taken a supercomputer programmed with expert chess knowledge to match a human grandmaster (and still not do better than 'match' the human player).

Even in games where I've beaten the AI, there have been a number of times and sections of the battle where I was working hard to keep things together. I've also seen some extremely clever behaviour and tactics from the AI, to the point where I began to wonder if the AI was rigged (as it is in so many games, where it's the only way the game could even give a human player a run). In fact, what pleases me most about this game is that the AI isn't artificially boosted, and doesn't have any advantages the human player doesn't have. Your suggestion that BTS 'tinker' with the engine to give the AI special advantages strikes me as wrong-headed. Also, I've played some scenarios over, and even with knowledge of what I was facing and how to meet it, the AI still sometimes caught me flat-footed. Not to mention that some of my most significant victories could have gone completely differently without a few luck factors. For example, in VoT (POSSIBLE SPOILER, although there's already been enough discussion of the scenario here, that I doubt it): One of my reinforcement Sherman's on it's first turn on map managed to put a shell right through the slit on the concrete pillbox with the 75mm gun. If I hadn't managed that, I'm sure the game could have gone quite a bit differently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username::

Not saying it isnt fun. I want the game for fast, fun, challenging firefights without waiting for an oponant to email me back. I aint getting it. Too bad.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, and I don't mean this be insulting, but perhaps you've picked up the wrong sort of game. Perhaps you'd be happier with an FPS. This game is exactly what I was looking for: a thoughtful, well-executed game that brought balance to laying out tactics and unit direction with more realistic execution and interaction.

------------------

After witnessing

exceptional bravery from

his Celtic mercenaries,

Alexander the Great

called them to him and

asked if there was

anything they feared.

They told him nothing,

except that the sky might

fall on their heads

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 05-16-2000).]

[Seanachai]

Oops, double post

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 05-16-2000).]

[Guest Username:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Lewis,

Trying to compare a control system that probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to program, running on specialized hardware (most likely, designed to do a very limited number of highly controled activities is totally out there. Sure, the fuzzy logic in my cam corder keeps a more steady picture than I could with my hand. But can it make me take better home movies? So I guess it sucks then?

I ask you again, what other tactical war or strategy game out there has better AI than CM? If you can't think of one then perhaps there might be a reason? SSG's level of warfare is much easier. And after having participated in a roundtable discussion on AI with the SSG guys several years ago I am pretty sure their AI "bends the rules" (cheats).

The fact that CM's AI doesn't play as well as a human is not because we have made it overly complex. That is really a silly statement because the only way to make the AI better is to make it more complex. Everything needs rules, so the more things you have in the game the more rules you need. That means complexity.

If you start with the expectation that the AI *should* be as good as a human player then you will never be happy with what we can actually do. The reason is that the real world is so much more rich and complex than can be simulated with a few months of AI programming. If it were that simple we would all be playing games that exceed human capabilities no problem. The fact that we aren't should tell you that you have unreasonable expectations for what we can do.

I am not saying that CM's AI couldn't be better. Of course it could be. But to trash the AI based on the standards of human play is unacceptable. If we could program AI that good we wouldn't be wasting our time with wargames. Instead we would be raking in billions of dollars designing control systems to run the world's industries at the managerial level. That is the sort of thing you are comparing CM to and it is simply not productive.

Turning off FoW for the AI? In theory it can be done, although I have no idea how hard it would be to program. It is also cheating, obviously. We thought about doing this a long time ago but decided against it (can't remember why though).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Funny stuff. Ive written assembly language software on an 8051 microcontroller that allows ANYONE to be a great bulldozer operator. Basically takes the human out of the loop. Wasnt hundreds of thousands and you are starting to make me wonder what you know about fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic cant solve bad home movies or bad taste either.. It doesnt require super sophisticated uPs or great programming. Just great vision.

2. CM doesnt impress me as being better than CC. What else would you compare it to?

(Since you brought itup about SSG, how are they bending the rules?)

3. I am not saying it is overly complex but more rather badly complex.

4. (The rest) Face it. Its an email game. Its a nice interface for people to play a 3D tactical game over the internet. The AI allows you to learn how to play.

(Suggestions)

Fuzzy logic is great for overall strategy and putting a direction on an attacker. I cant see it being used for platoon level decisions (There should just be drills, as there are in real life). But again, since you arent even disclosing the basics of the AT fire algorithms, I am loathe to see your tactical models.. Perhaps you should have started on the Eastern Front.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

Could you try and be a bit more egotistical and insulting? It would be interesting to see if you could. Though I would likely ban you if you somehow manged to top your already legendary abilities.

So let me get this PERFECTLY straight...

Charles doesn't know how to program AI. He knows nothing about fuzzy logic, and neither do I (it has been a while since I read some Kosko...). Our vision is horribly muddled and clouded, while yours is crystal clear. Close Combat's AI is on a par with CM's, and everybody in this thread who has said differently is a fool because only you know the Truth. You could program a better tactical AI with your eyes closed, but for whatever reason you haven't. Basically Combat Mission is something that you could have whipped off while you were inbetween jobs, but for whatever reason you just didn't get around to it.

Have I missed anything? Even if I had, your opinion really means nothing to us (or anybody else so far as I can tell). As soon as you position yourself as knowing more than we do, even though you have never made a tactical wargame with or without AI, instantly puts you into the "whiner with an ego problem" category.

As for Roger Keating's vision of AI, he doesn't subscribe to the same definition of cheating as we do. Our definition is that it musn't be able to access any feature or function that the human player can not. The SSG principle is not as strict (at least it wasn't while he was doing the Ardennes game and before) and that allowing the AI to peek at the human player's "cards" wasn't really cheating. I'm trying to remember what other things he felt were OK (I have an audio tape of the roundtable somehwere around here), but can't think of anything off the top of my head.

You really are a piece of work...

Steve

[Fionn]

1. EVERYONE has said that the AI is good but will never be as good as a human player. it'll give you a run for your money BUT unless you make a mistake it isn't really going to beat you often.

It's a damn sight better than most AIs out there ( ie. Steel Panther rush for the flag in a straight line AI ).

Guys, Lusername is just trolling again. Just ignore him. He's not really worth the time since we can all be pretty much guaranteed he'll have a new gripe tomorrow and a new one the day after that. All will be illusory and all will be presented in his same argumentative manner.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Lewis I really think it sucks that you go out of your way to piss of the guys that have produced the greatest game ever made

Doom on you

says TrickyDick

------------------

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Pham]

In VoT, even after playing it 10 or so times the AI still impresses me, even when it's on the offense. I've had it blind my panther with smoke to force me off the hill to the SSW of town so it could move squads in to clear up my infantry in town. I've had it push against one flank until I moved forces to intercept what I thought was it's main attack, only to have it suddenly bring men out of the woods on the opposite flank that I had just stupidly weakened. I've also had the AI manage to use smoke to get a flame thrower up to my bunker line, which is a good trick even if I wasn't paying attention given how slow and vunerable those units are and how every single unit that sees one will decide it's the best target on the map. There are more examples I could list.

Personally, I think BTS's AI will hold me over just fine until someone coverts your fuzzy logic assembly language bulldozer driving program into the next generation wargame.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

What's "funny stuff" is your analogy saying that the complexity of World War Two tactical combined arms combat is roughly on the level of driving a bulldozer! LOL Lewis!! I really hope that was meant in jest because it's (unintentionally?) hilarious!

As to how you don't think CM is "better" than CC (Close Combat), well, to each his own. Although you're mightly vague about how you arrive at that judgement. If you mean to imply that CM's AI is no better than CC's, then I must ask, Would you care to dance, sir? The infamous Close Combat AI Tank Dance, of course! Surely you are familiar with it? Everyone else is!

No one - not even us - holds up CM's AI as being just as good as a good human player. But that seems to be the point you're making. Why bother? Tell us something we don't know, Lewis. What computer game of any reasonable level of complexity does have an AI that's as good as a good human player? Answer: none. So unless you're unimpressed with every computer game you've ever played (which wouldn't surprise me! ) then you're not saying anything original here.

All your complaints are of little value unless you can point to another game that has a PC-based AI that's any better. And no, Lewis, CC's comes up laughably short, tank dance and all... Nor does bulldozer driving AI. LOL! I can see it now! "Bulldozer Death Match 3000" endorsed by Lewis himself as "the best AI I've seen since, well, since my 8051 microcontroller days!" LOL!

Charles

[Lt Bull]

The problem I see here is one of "expectation" and reality.

Regardless of how disappointed Lewis says he is with the AI, the bottom line is this: current pc gaming technology (software and hardware combined) is probably several decades away from achieving the AI people like Lewis is expecting to see in a game as complex as CM.

I could believe BTS' claims that they have one of the best AIs in a computer wargame AND that the Gold AI is better than the Beta AI, but I don't believe comparing the AI with a human player is such a big deal anyway.

I am 100% confident of the next statement:

The REAL challenge of CM (and probably any other computer game) is NOT against the AI, but against another HUMAN opponent! Think of the AI as a sparring partner rather than your main opponent. Its there when you want a bit of a fight (throw a few punches, try a few different moves, get your confidence up), but you wouldn't care too much if you can KO it if you wanted too. Its not your greatest challenge (unless you are an a**hole and nobody wants to play you!!)

I think someone mentioned the Big Blue chess computer as a reference in another thread. Here is what seems to be mankinds best effort at creating a super-computer SOLEY to beat a human at a simple game (but which has lots of depth) and it struggled at that!!

(BTW, if you want to play a game where the AI can play the game at a level to what Lewis seems to be expecting in CM, then I would be sure any good computer chess game will be better than most human opponents!!)

What must that say about the AI in a game that is trying to simulate something much more complex than a game of chess and that takes 30mb to download?

The AI BTS have put into CM is probably as good as it can get for a game like CM (within reason). What CM is trying to simulate with the AI is VERY complex and to expect an AI that plays CM consistently like an above average human player is probably a bit of a pipe dream right now.

Bear in mind that I do differentiate between the Tact AI and the Strategic AI in this discussion. I have been mainly refering to the Strat AI, which is what I think Lewis is mainly refering to. Regardless, I can say that the Tact AI itself seems superb and I don't think many people would question that. I would be more concerned with Tact AI flaws, of course, rather than Strat AI flaws as the Tact AI manifests itself in ALL order execution (AI or human).

If the AI is still not good enough for some people, so what?? If you ENJOY the game AND want a challenge, simply play a human PBEM (unfortunately they may not be at your immediate service as the AI is for a game!). You have your game AND your challenge. Does it matter that this challenge isn't coming from playing the AI? (ohh yeah...it does for the a**holes out there who can't get anyone to play with them).

So in summary, I don't really see what the point is of complaining about how easy it may be to beat the AI in CM. So what? You DO like the game? It's as good a wargame of its type you are going to get right now from any other gaming company? You are looking for a real challenge? One that may actually give you a better idea of how much of a military genius you may REALLY be?????!!!...then play a human and quit your damn whinging!

Lt. Bull