SFJaykey Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 A month or two ago, with a couple of dozen CMBB games under my belt, I joined the chorus decrying "Borg spotting" and proposed a chain-of-command based spotting system. (Not knowing that a similar idea had been discussed months earlier, long before I'd joined the Forums.) Replies and archived posts to earlier threads warned against turning CM into a "command game," in which the player essentially took the role of a particular HQ on the field. At the time, I thought that such a change, or at least such an option, would be desireable, and said so. Now, having tripled (at least) my CM experience, and played a number of games against human opponents, I'm changing my tune. For one thing, my scheme placed too much reliance on the TacAI to handle out-of-command units. At the time of my previous comments, most of my CM experience was against the AI and I held it in fairly high regard, especially compared to earlier games like Close Combat. I thought that the evolutionary improvements that could be expected in the AI would make it able to handle out-of-command units competently, at least for a few turns. Now, having played many games against competent human components, I appreciate the night-and-day difference, and expect it would take a revolutionary change in the TacAI, maybe two, to make it powerful enough for my scheme to work. Under Full or Extreme FOW, it is already tricky enough to manage any force larger than a company, to spot sources of incoming fire (from a thoughtfully placed enemy), and d*** frustrating trying to manage large numbers of out-of-command units. The spotting scheme I'd proposed would add to the frustrations, and take too much fun out of the game relative to the amount of realism added. After posting well-intentioned gripes before, I thought it only fair to post again now that I've realized BFC had it right all along! - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Good post, and I'll readily agree with it. For a nice example of what you're looking for, try Airborne Assault, if you don't know it already. I really liked the concept but never got that immersed in the somewhat abstract battles compared to the usual CM battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Matt, hi, I certainly agree with you. My priorities are realism, realism, and more realism. However, with one important qualification. That we continue to play the roles of battalion commander, company commander, and squad/AFV commander. A large part of the magic is in playing the role of squad/AFV commander. The good news is that in the new engine with each unit doing its own spotting (Relative Spotting), perfected Extreme Fog of War, and live team play (multi, multi, play) you will be able to play a game with many of the features of a “command game” depending on the forces you command in a team game. If you follow me. All good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted May 8, 2003 Author Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: ....If you follow me. Kind of....still wondering how relative spotting will work in practice, and how the command system may be changed. But I have faith in the designers, that whatever happens will be an improvement, and am especially looking forward to multi-player games! - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Matt I do appreciate your (revised) point of view and understand that you feel the AI is not capable of controlling units that are not in C&C. However, a question. Just what is it that you would like the AI to do, assuming we are looking at something close to reality? A squad or vehicle, in such a situation, is IMO likely to do one of three things, depending on circunstances and experience. Stay put and shoot back if attacked, awaiting further orders. Make its way towards friendly lines or map edge. Continue towards a previously given location, engaging enemy forces if encountered. That doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem for the AI, even in it's current format. In fact it does most of those things already. You just wouldn't get gamey borg spotting intel. from units that couldn't possibly supply it. Just a thought. And Hi Kip; I will continue the crusade. We really ought to do a PBEM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: [snips] My priorities are realism, realism, and more realism. AAARRRGH! Kip used the "R" word! Three times! Icky. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Originally posted by James Crowley: [snips] However, a question. Just what is it that you would like the AI to do, assuming we are looking at something close to reality? If you'll excuse MFJI, this is one of the things I think would be much easier to do in a "command game" (and I would very much like to see a command game pitched at the same scale as CM -- it's just that it would be a different game from CM and should have a different name). At least as I visualise a command game, the one-minute slices of the "wego" system would be replaced by alternating variable-length planning and execution phases for each command address group (each bunch of people sharing a set of orders, roughly). Once planning is completed and orders given, the group moves out to execute its tasks or fulfil its mission (depending on whether the commander is using befehlstaktik or auftragstaktik). If a series of tasks has been allocated, the TacAI has a pretty simple job -- it just tries to do those, in much the same way as it does now. If a mission has been allocated, the AI will have more "thinking" work to do, but the choice of whether to push on, hold or pull back should be informed by the mission and the constraints specified -- the orders would be a sort of AI scripting system for subordinate units. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted May 9, 2003 Author Share Posted May 9, 2003 Originally posted by James Crowley: Matt I do appreciate your (revised) point of view and understand that you feel the AI is not capable of controlling units that are not in C&C. However, a question. Just what is it that you would like the AI to do, assuming we are looking at something close to reality?....Well the big thing would be the ability to follow higher-level orders, such as: "Infiltrate up that creek bed and attack his MG nest from the rear." "Move to Contact," "Hunt" etc are great features but they only take you so far. The out-of-command unit would have to exercise considerable initiative and judgement to solve such a problem. Especially if we are talking about a true command game, where that order is given not to a squad but to a platoon or a company, and the AI HQ has to deploy its squads and any support weapons while out of player command. Then there is the issue of timing. Let's say the AI can really handle complex orders, such as "Drive your trucks down this road, disembark your MGs and mortars, hump them through the woods and take up positions to support our infantry advance." But if they're out of command, how do they know when to open up? Another example, an order given to some forward skirmishers: "Stop enemy probes, put up enough resistance to try and get him to show some of his heavier units, but pull back before you get really hurt." It would take a pretty smart AI to make that last judgement, and even if it could, where's the fun for the human player? I used to think, as you apparently do, that the TacAI was "almost there," but am having second thoughts. After seeing how skilled human players handle such situations, then going back to playing the AI, I think it would take a quantum leap in terms of AI intiative and flexibility, rather than a few tweaks, for this to really work. I mean, right now, any reasonably competent human player can manage a combined arms attack far better than the AI can. And most of us (judging from the statements of forum participants) have never had military training or experience! Some of the company and platoon HQs in the game represent well-trained and battle-hardened commanders. I would hope that when turned lose from my silly commands, their tactics would be _better_ than mine, not worse! And BTW, I am _not_ slamming the AI: it's the best I've played against. And hopefully it will be improved further, so as to make for a better opponent, and to manage those units that inevitably do wander out of control. But its shortcomings are only one of the reasons why I've changed my opinion on the desirability of the "command game" format. Simply put: such a format would lead to too much watching of the action, and not enough involvement by the human player. While perhaps more realistic, it would not be as much "fun." IMO, as always. - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 John, hi, Good to see you are still lurking out there keeping us all to our metal! I should have realised that use of the “R” word would draw you out. Jim, hi, yes, you and I have rather a different spin on Borg Spotting and Command Games. But at least, as I explained above, at times when you get a bunch of us together for a Live Team game you will be able to play what in effect would be a Command Game as you wish. In my view, it is hard to understate how much fun Live Team play will be. Just having one guy commanding the infantry, and one the armour, will cause all sorts of fun problems. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.