Dar Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 I think that game Henri mentioned is "Orion", which I also had on my C64. One terrific game, but unfortunately it probably didn't appeal to as wide an audience as most games because of the need to learn programming. There's another game out now that's somewhat similar called "Mindrover". If Orion appealed to you, I'm sure Mindrover would. ------------------ Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 On relative spotting: There have been several discussions of this. A search will turn up hours worth of reading. The gist of it all is that the reason there is no relative spotting in CM is not because it is too difficult to code, but rather because it would be a big CPU hit that would push the minimum spec computer required to run CM beyond acceptable limits. It's good to see BTS is working on this. Nobody beats BTS's level of support. Smoke is another area where the TacAI currently is not very good. It is frustrating when you order your on board mortars to suppress/attrit a dug in enemy in preparation for assault, only to see it change your orders and smoke it instead because the targeted enemy was firing at a friendly unit. "If I had wanted the target smoked I would have told you to smoke it, damn it!" I do hope they implement some increased user input into unit behavior for CM2. Whether it is SOPs or something else, it is needed. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 bredberg wrote: I don't wan't to question Charles ability as a programmer his is most probably more experiance than me - however if he haven't though about include these additional vectors to a each unit (agreeable this would eat up a bit of memory) it would be easy.... Again, if adding relative spotting to the code were easy, it would be in the game already. I seem to remember reading one detailed post form Steve or Charles that explained the difficulties but I couldn't find it using search. Instead, I found the following piece by Steve: Are you going to do variable realtive spotting? Mind you that this feature is a long ways off, and there is NO design for it yet, but I will take a few off the cuff stabs at your questions... Can one unit have a firm contact while another a sound contact? One tank thinks that AFV is a Tiger, the other one thinks its a PzIIL? Yes, this is easy to do. Unfortunately, the other major reality problem (i.e. the Human player) will be able to order his units to move based on the correct identification even if, for that turn, the units will act based on what they think the target is. How does one unit spotting a target effect another units ability to spot that target? Dunno. This could be a REALLY tough one. I suppose we could have some sort of "information transfer" based on the type of unit, experience, stance (pinned, running, etc), and proximity. However, I have no idea if this will be possible due to CPU limitiations. The performance hit could be huge. You are looking at an exponential (squared) number of calculations, and on a very large map with a lot of units, it could get ugly really fast. Exactly why it is not in the game now When we release the rewritten CM engine the dramatic increase in calculations will likely be OK for the processors of the day. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Henri: This is a great idea, and it reminds me of a tank game (I forgot the name, it was one word, and it's on the tip of my tongue...) where one could program his tanks then send them into an arena to fight against other tanks.The program was a basic-like program, so there was a tradeoff between complexity of program and speed of execution: if you programmed your tank to make a lot of sophisticated operations, it would get killed before it had time to act, so tanks tended to be specialized (edge huggers, corner campers, recon tanks,killer tanks, etc) But unfortunately this would send CM historical realism out the door, so I wouldn't count on BTS supporting it, although I do agree that it would be a lot of fun. Henri I played a game like that to. But that's not what I had in mind. The player would still control the tank between one minute turns so you would never program your tank to be a edge hugger etc... However you could tell it to priorities targets and give a target a "memory lifetime" of your choosing or maybe how it should react we it thinks it's out gunned etc... What I really, really would like is a chance to write my own Strategic AI scripting or algorithms. When chess programs first came out a child (or novice) could usually kick the computers ass. Now the best chess players in the world don't even play blitz chess against computers because they can't beat them. (I won't even mention Deep Blue and Kasparov) Wouldn't it be cool if the CM Strategic AI could be evolved (even somewhat) in this manner? How 'bout it BTS? Crack open those algorithms in the never engine rev. ------------------ I'd rather die sleeping like my grandfather, than screaming like his passengers. [This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 01-26-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 27, 2001 Author Share Posted January 27, 2001 Another example of "stupid" tank AI: In a pbem turn today I hunt a panther about 10 feet forward and he turns hull and turrent @25 degrees and engages a sherman 76w+ at @400m. Both fire, each miss. Sherman begins to reverse, boggs immediately. Both panther and sherman stop firing, my panther turns his hull and turrent 90 degrees to shoot at an already identified crew 30m away in a light one-story building, gets bogged now facing sideways to the Sherman. Something is very wrong with tank AI in 1.1 right now. -Tiger [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-26-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted January 27, 2001 Share Posted January 27, 2001 Tiger Maybe you can avoid this problem by using a different order. AFAIK, AFVs using the hunt order are very likely to engage anything they became aware of. So if you used the MOVE or FAST MOVE order for your Tiger to cross that small depression where it was out of LOS to the Churchill, the result could have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 27, 2001 Share Posted January 27, 2001 Tiger, that sounds like something you should definitely send into Madmatt. You did save this one right? ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts