AI and being picky :^)

[Lobo]

I was just reading some of the posts regarding the AI. I know people are just talking and making passing comments and that 99.99 or 100 percent of the people love this demo and will love the game.

It strikes me as funny though, on how picky we become over time. We start off with only good things to say, then we start seeing little things that we would like to see corrected, then the AI is possibly cheating or not up to snuff.

I know this is just from playing the demo over and over (hmm, think i'm up to about 10 on the gold demo . I also know this doesn't necessarily detract from our enjoyment or pleasure with the game. It just shows how tough it must be to make a great game (This is as close as it gets! in strategy/war gaming at least. Rougue Spear has it hands down in it's own category

Can you imagine an AI that does everything we think it should? That, my friends, goes beyond Artificial Intelligence and into the "living being" category. We are light years away from something like that.

Now, having said that, I am truly amazed at what they have accomplished with the AI in this game. I just love to see the AI use artillery, massed and individual assaults, popping smoke with tanks when they see a major threat and on and on and on....

Understand, I'm not belittling anyone for their AI comments, that's how the game makers get better and how things evolve.. It's just something I've pondered (heavy, ain't it?

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Oh, I know!!! The AI did one hellava attack on me as the Germans in VoT. I didn't have a chance. No matter what I did they over-ran me and/or shelled the piss out of me. They even had the 4 reinforcing Shermans make it down into town.

[Guest Babra]

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

...that's how the game makers get better and how things evolve... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on the money. No input, no improvements. CM does have the best A/I I've seen in a wargame. I'll always prefer a human opponent, but during turn execution it's nice to have some comfort that units will behave predictably. When a slow traversing support weapon ignores threatening targets within a few degrees of arc to acquire a target further away and many more degrees out of arc (no matter how juicy) then something needs tweaking. That is not a predictable response.

[Flix]

This, hands down, is the most impressive and engaging computer wargame that I have ever encountered. (I've been wanting to get that off of my chest for some time.)

CM has very good AI as far as I'm concerned. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Even if the AI was mediocre, everything else in this milestone of a game would make up for it.

Mark my words, this game will revolutionize computer wargaming forever.

Thanks,

Flix

[Guest Captain Foobar]

This AI is very impressive, IMO, but there are a couple of hurdles that appear with such a complex simulation. You as a human have an advantage over the computer on a couple of counts.

1) You know that your adversary will be attacking with a force comparable to yours.

2) You know that your adversary is deployed beyond the "50 yard-line"

I am going to try to remove at least these 2 advantages in the scenarios that I create.

3) The AI (AFAIK) cannot try to figure out what *you* are thinking.....This is a big part of any pbem.... However, this could make the AI less susceptible to "tricks".

**AI advantages**

Tactical execution..WOW.. especially with armor units......

[Berlichtingen]

it is the nature of Grogs to pick nits

[Guest Big Time Software]

They key is to keep the discussion focused on fundamental and meaningful needs. When a discussion goes off on a tangent into areas that really aren't important, then everybody is wasting their time (other than enjoying the conversation, which does have value).

The problem with wargamers in general, and Grognards in particular, is unreasonable expectations. Especially when it comes to AI. The more you look for "flaws" the more you will find them, no matter what aspect of the game you are talking about (AI, UI, manual, sound, graphics, etc). That is one of the great laws of the universe, and certainly applies to ANY game. Those gamers that stop looking (and/or caring) after they hit a certain level of satisfaction with the presentation wind up enjoying the game a lot more. Those that keep up a constant vigil for and lust for posting for every single little possible flaw or missing feature tend to make themselves miserable first, then other people (especially us developers )

This has been an interesting point of discussion recently and many Grogs have reacted as negatively towards the criticism of their behavior as they heap onto the games they supposedly can't stand to play (yet often hundreds of hours of play later they are still there playing ). From a game developer's standpoint cronic and unreasonable complaining is a REAL ISSUE and a real turn off. It is no accident that fewer and fewer people give a crap about making wargames of any serious standing. A first hand example...

When I was at Impressions suggestions made by Grognards were ignored more and more because the demands were absolutely never ending. Our parent company, Sierra OnLine, paid even less attention. Nothing we would, or could, ever do would EVER stop the griping. So why put in 10 months into AI development if the people requesting it are just going to find something else to complain about and then demand another 2 months worth of work (which if done would be met with more demands) because "man, this game SUCKS". So the feeling was that this very tiny minority of gamers could just go bug someone else because we had better things to do than listen to constant bitching and moaning, especially when it became clear the person doing all the bitching was playing the game night and day (so inspite of their attitude it was clear that the game was good or the person has absolutely no life worth living ).

Don't confuse constructive discourse on a game's features and value with what I am talking about. There is often a fine line, but there is a difference between making a suggestion and making a demand. Suggestions we like, demands aren't received well at all Bitching and complaining aren't even listened to. Because if we did... we would probably stop making wargames or wind up in prison for unspeakable acts of violence. So think of ignoring cronic complainers as form of rage control

Sorry for the ramble. It is late and I need sleep

Steve

[von Lucke]

Anal-retentive, compulsive-obsesive, nit-picking, glass-is-half-empty, crotchety-ol-bastard #1 here (just ask my three ex-wives and anybody I've ever worked with)!

It's human nature for those of us who can't do it ourselves (Grogs), to harp on those who can (Programmers), because we are frustrated at the very nature of the relationship: We know what we'd do if it were us, but we're relying on you to do it for us --- and delegating authority is not something I ever earned a gold star for! It's like trying to direct somebody in hanging a picture: "A little to the right... now up a little... now to the left... back down a smidge...". You get the point.

Everybody gets frustrated, because everybody has their own vision --- most of all Steve and Charles! As you say, there comes a point when criticism becomes counter-productive (I can think of a couple of names I could insert here ) --- but think of it more as a group of disadvantaged artists wanting to add their brush-strokes to the master-work that CM will become!

It's understood (by most) that there are things that can be tweaked, things that will have to be patched, and things that will have to do without. It's just a matter of finding out which are which.

To some degree, it's your accessability Steve that brings out a lot of these -- ahem! -- "suggestions". People around here have gotten the impression that with enough feedback/evidence/documentation you guys are willing to move some code around (to your credit, you also know when to put yr foot down and say no), so we're more likely to throw the speed-balls at you.

Anyway, keep at it man! Yours is the best relationship I've seen between Designer and Customer in a hell of a long time!

Ok, enuff --- I need my sleep too!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks! And yes, because I am here everyday listening and discussing this stuff we are in fact going to get more of the unwanted comments as well. Since we also move fast and effectively when suggestions sway us into action, this invites even more! It is no wonder that most game developers have hardly any direct communication with their customers. Even wargame developers are like this for the most part. Having designed games with and without customer feedback I can tell you that it is *MUCH* easier to make games without engaging in discussions with customers. But I also feel, and Charles does too, that while it might be easier it does not produce the best possible end result. And that is why I am here day in and day out instead of doing other things with my time

Steve

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well, I have been have similar discussions on a couple of other forums regarding CM's AI. Particularly the TacAI (what I have been calling the "Unit AI").

I will state flat-out that I think the TacAI is better than any other I have seen in a PC wargame, ever.

But, I am firmly convinced that because of the turn sequencing used in CM (that I DEARLY love) the TacAI has to be absolutely top notch because the player is not allowed any further input for 60 seconds at a time.

If you doubt me of an instant...try to picture CM with TacAI like "Close Combat"...sorry didn't mean to scare anybody! Also try to imagine what "Close Combat" could have been like IF it had had CM's TacAI.... Now that would have been nice.

IMO this means that the TacAI in CM will be more likely to magnify even a small shortcoming that would never have been noticed in a turn based or 'real time' game and will tend to be held to a 'higher standard'.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Spook]

Uh-oh, Steve. You woke up another "grognard."

Somewhere in the CM Forum prehistoric archives (about two weeks ago, ) you might recall the topic "Am I turning into a grognard?" When I posted late on that topic, you might further recall that I added a post to break out categories for grognards. I was doing so in half-humor, but also doing so to offer what I regard to be as truth.

I will declare myself again to be a "consistency" grognard, and I'm damn unapologetic about it. The rules of CONSISTENCY for this gamer are the following:

1) When a historical game covers a certain theme (in CM's case, WW2 tactical combat) and at a certain scale, then it should hit on the critical elements for that game scale. What defines "critical elements" will be subjective from one person to the next, but I certainly don't see shoe wear, helmet straps, & dental floss as critical to a CM scale. I DO take a dimmer view of a tactical wargame that tosses out morale, command & control, or logistics (ammo) limitations.

2) For elements that ARE in the game, I don't like to see "contrived" shortcuts that render that element as unrealistic even to the layman. If I see a 2-lbr AT gun cause a Panther to catch fire and blow up at 1500 meters range at better-than-even odds, then I'm not so forgiving.

My quest has NOT been for the absolutely detailed wargame. Heck, in my play of the CC series, I just couldn't watch over the morale state of each & every soldier during RT play anyway; that was too much for me to keep up with. But I always long for the CONSISTENT game. There can never be the perfectly "realistic" or "accurate" game, but a consistent game usually will lean towards relative accuracy. I was a BIG fan of the TalonSoft Campaign Series in earlier days, and liked many of its features, but its inconsistent treatment of artillery, pillboxes, and close assaults finally killed off that game system to me.

Anyway, Steve, I will certainly agree with you & others that nonconstructive complaining is a waste of cyberspace. And I've played the CM demos enough to decide for myself that CM potentially seems to be the MOST consistent tactical wargame out there. Hell, it might be the most consistent wargame to come out for 2000----PERIOD. I hope that you'll take that "consistency" criteria & advocation to heart.

As for views on what caused the "big boys" to get out of "wargaming", I think you'd better the check on the cdmag.com forums, with the topic regarding the "CGO Editorial" of Bob Mayer's.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 05-26-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Yeah, lets not fool ourselves here.

MONEY is the one and only thing that drove the big companies out of wargames.

If they could make "Half-life" money doing wargames, they would. Its that simple IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[jgdpzr]

"But I also feel, and Charles does too, that while it might be easier it does not produce the best possible end result. And that is why I am here day in and day out instead of doing other things with my time."

Stop it Steve, or we're just gonna have to go up there to New England and give you guys a big wargamers group hug. Errr, wait a second, we don't do that kind of thing, do we? How 'bout a big smootch from a 'faust 60? You know, I mean, thanks! You guys are just too good to us impatient, sniveling, self-perceived (or more appropriately, self-deceived?) grognards.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jgdpzr, that was funny Seriously though, it is the truth. It woud be pretty easy for me to shut off my Internet connection right now and do something else instead (like mowing my lawn )

Scott, you are dead on. Money is the big issue. And the that ties in with what I said. The abuse developers suffer from a tiny audience doesn't have the payback needed to put up with it. In other words, if there were 100,000 people whining and complaining out of a total audience of 500,000 we would be seeing more wargames catering to the every whim of the Grogs. But since the Grogs (the vocal ones anyway) probably represent a few thousand people... why bother?

Ed, I agree with you 100%. People that are here asking for consistancy are welcomed with open arms. We want the same thing, but we of course are only human and therefore can't come up with 100% of the answers 100% of the time that cover 100% of the circumstances. So the voices here have helped fill in the gaps. The key thing is that we act as the gatekeepers to make sure only things will enhance the consistancy get added and done so in such away as to keep the consistancy of the game as a whole intact. Frequently there are good, or at least historically correct, suggestions that would actually undermine the game as a whole if they were put in at all or done incorrectly.

BTW, we have a few terms for the various flavors of wargamers too. We would call you an Enlightened Grognard This is the type that CAN see the forest through the trees. Although demanding in terms of holding us to fairly high standards, is none-the-less logical, fair, and rational in how to apply those standards to the game as it is and practical development considerations. We label ourselves as Enlightened Grognards

Steve

[Spook]

Yeah, I like that term as applied to us all. For me, though, it certainly helped to develop a persepective from having taken a few lumps in life. The playtest work I did last year gave me a little insight into just how much effort it can take to "get it right" in a computer game project.

[Jeff Pattison]

Although consistancy is important for a wargame AI, the most important thing to me is not that it's the best thing out there. It's that it gives me a good fight. And, CM's AI does. I'm more impressed with every game that passes.

That Steve and Charles actually care enough to listen and take the time to respond is greatly appreciated.

[kunstler]

Hmm. Well, off base criticism can sure be irksome. So I thought I'd throw in my two cents here in the other direction.

CM is so good I don't see any point in them making CC 4 or 5 or whatever it is, or that Hasbro Squad Leader thing. What's the point? Even from their inception they're not as good as CM. CM is simply awesome. Amazing. Incredible. A tremendous amount of work and an equally impressive, if not more so, result.

I haven't played many war games but none of them has been as immersive or realistic seeming as CM.

I remember taking a shot at Panzer General a few years ago. In that game, which is much, much simpler than CM and faaaar less realistic, the computer rarely attacks in the campaigns. the player does, almost always. Call me cynical but I always thought it was because (and I think it's reasonable to believe) the ai did a better job on defense than offense. I can't point to any game that has better ai than CM.

Over time I'm sure some weak chinks in the ai armour will appear, but they do in every game, because humans are simply more resourceful than preset code. Even so, it's an impressive opponent. It's beaten me numerous times (ok, I'm not a tactical genius, either, but anyway . . .)

And finally, even though BTS is a small shop, it's putting the game out for the mac as well, which is simply phenomenal. Much larger companies with greater resources like Interplay and such don't bother to do so, so kudos to BTS.

I assure you your work is not unappreciated, in spite of the criticisms.

kunstler

[Jimmy 4 Eyes]

I am now feeling a little guilty about my other post on the crew not going back to their guns... but that is not really an AI issue anyways.

Just wanted to say that this game is great. I am somewhat of a cross over wargamer as I used to mainly play the action "big money" games. So this game is even converting some of us instant action types.

Anyways, keep up the work and get that game shipped... i am waiting very patiently (not)!!!!

[Seanachai]

I have to say, I do appreciate many of the extremely knowledgeable and analytical people who frequent this board, and who's observations, experience, and requests have contributed to the process of making what is, in my opinion, one of the best wargames I've ever seen.

This game is the game my high school buddies and I used to dream about. We would have killed to own a game of this quality, complexity, and playability. (Of course, at that point in history, if we could have been the peopel that created the computer systems it runs on now, we'd have been rich enough to hire psychopathic Grognards to re-enact the battles for us on the original terrain...)

I've been absolutely astonished by BTS (read: Steve and Charles)'s availability, willingness to listen, and willingness to implement change. Awwww, dammit, jgdpzr, now you got me doing it...sniff.

Anyway, this is a truly fine game, I'm impressed with the AI, which (now that I'm a little more experienced), I usually beat, even blind. But there's still a struggle to do so, sometimes I don't do anywhere near as good as I think I will, and I still enjoy immensely the process. I've said it before, there are aspects of any given battle against the AI where I was seriously breaking a sweat and paying REALLY CLOSE ATTENTION to what was going down. And that's a big part of any game, for me.

I'm sure, from everything I've seen even during the time I've been here, that BTS will continue to tweak, nudge, and prod the game into ever and ever more intriguing abilities and functionality. Will they ever finally and completely satisfy everyone? Of course they will! (that final tweak will see the introduction of the jaeger-bomber flying pigs, of course).

And while I hope the grumblers will continue their (courteous) request for realism, features, and playability, let us keep in mind the story of the man who, on the brink of death, went to visit his doctor. After six weeks of intensive medical attention, he strode into the doctor's office, and called him a goddamn fraud and a quack. The doctor said to him: "What the hell do you mean? I stabilized you, reinflated your collapsed lung, cured you of pneumonia, fought off staff and strep infections, rebuilt your infected sinuses, and got you back on your feet and back on the job!" And the man replied: "Yeah, but I'm not any TALLER!"

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

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.