New CMx2 AI Improvements (planned)... New bone by Steve buried in PBEM noise thread

[Wartgamer]

Ok edited out, please do the same.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry guys... once again I have to depart this conversation. Getting into areas we don't want to discuss in public quite yet.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sorry guys... once again I have to depart this conversation. Getting into areas we don't want to discuss in public quite yet.

Steve

OK

Thanks

Was that the offical:

"It is the policy of this department/administration/office to niether confirm or deny any such rumours, allegations or speculation on these matters" ???

Well its better than saying NO it won't work and we are not doing it!

Thanks for all the hints and bones!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sorry guys... once again I have to depart this conversation. Getting into areas we don't want to discuss in public quite yet.

Steve

That's OK

I would be more than happy to discuss them in private !

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

Can we knock ourselves out brainstorming? It might help someone who is developing a Wargame that you may distribute? Or we can just have fun discussing it?

[aka_tom_w]

Hey Wartgamer...

would you consider sending me an e-mail?

please

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

I would consider it if you would give me a possible reason for sending it. Are you looking for an email game?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I would consider it if you would give me a possible reason for sending it. Are you looking for an email game?

Sure

Just friendly off line chat

really

you will like what I have to say

trust me

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

I usually just email people for PBEM games. The only 'friendly' off-line chat is in that context. Nothing personal, just not interested. I, uh, get enough 'tom' in the context of this forum.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I usually just email people for PBEM games. The only 'friendly' off-line chat is in that context. Nothing personal, just not interested. I, uh, get enough 'tom' in the context of this forum.

OK

sorry

I just wanted your opinion offline on something I thought you would be interested in given how closely you have followed these threads and this one in particular

-tom w

[Wartgamer]

My opinion matters according to this equation...

Opinion_Matters=1/(total_number_of_Customers)

IF Sum_Of_Opinion_Matters_that_are_same_as_my_opinion>(total_number_of_Customers)/2

Then

Matters_A _Lot_I _suppose

[aka_tom_w]

Sure your opinion matters

that's why I was requesting to chat

offline

-tom w

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

My opinion matters according to this equation...

Opinion_Matters=1/(total_number_of_Customers)

IF Sum_Of_Opinion_Matters_that_are_same_as_my_opinion>(total_number_of_Customers)/2

Then

Matters_A _Lot_I _suppose

[Battlefront.com]

Knock yourselves out in terms of discussion. A lot of what you guys are talking about is quite good, but that good stuff is either already on the drawing board or not relevant because of something else that is. It's just to early to say what is what

Steve

[Wartgamer]

My opinion is largely concerned with having a realism setting that will capture the multifaceted dynamics of battle at the proposed cmx2 level (read Battalion or less).

While that may be viewed as a self serving 'bother' to a busy designer, the fact that it can propel the product into a true military worthy training aid should not be lost.

And, if you have ever been in the military, they are no so concerned with Funso factors. So, my ideas and opinions, while seemingly rigid and unfunso on the surface, could yield another market besides the yappy diehard 'Grogs' and the casual (read really poor players) wargamer.

[aka_tom_w]

old thread

I think this worth repeating...

"So far Steve as not commented at all about the possibility of assymetrical realism or FOW settings for the AI and the human player or two human players.

THAT one feature alone would be a break through of magnificient proportions!"

-tom w

[ July 01, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[pamak1970]

I read this thread and it reminded me of one of the games i love.

I am not going to post its name but since we talk about various approaches in scenario design and tools ,i would like to give some information on this issue.

I will just point that the game is of a battalion level ,real time.

I will also have to clarify that all my comments are about scenario design and tools that help a player build them.

Similar tools and game interface are used to help player "control" his forces during regular play.

Nothing of the above is relative of programming AI.

This is much more complicated and a different subject

So, considering what i just said, i found that boolean logic (If-then-and -or else....) gave me the best flexibility as a scenario designer or as a gamer controlling my forces during play.

This is of course my personal opinion ,but i think it is worth something since I have some experience as an old wargamer starting with Avalon Hill board games and i have monitored very close the developments in all fields of wargaming entertainment including computer wargames.

Since i talk about boolean logic I will give some examples to present more clearly the possibilities a player or game designer have

See the following picture

That is one example regarding the control of movement in the game i am talking about.

You set the conditions that must be fullfilled in order to have a unit start movement from a waypoint towards another.

There are similar ways to control artillery (call artillery if"

or to set SOPS,like "fire if" or "retreat if", or to control formations.

Additionally the above conditions may apply to waypoints locations, along routes that connect waypoints or inside certain locations that a player draws on the map.

Let see some parameters of the above figure.

At the top we see the sentence "embark on route if" folowed by a combination of squares linked with and-or .

Now each square can be a certain condition ,so we can have a sentence like "embark on route if condition A is true or we can make it more complex like "embark on route if condition A is true and condition be is false, or (A true and B true) or ((a true and B true) or (c true and D force)) and so on.

Exprerienced designers can link even more complicated sentences by naming certain arrangements of conditions as "events" and then use sentences linking events -IF event A is true and or ....- see for example the second option in the figure

Now , someone might wonder what is this "condition A or B" stand for?

The asnwer comes from the rest of the image.

It can be any of of sentences you see there.

For example,suppose that someone chooses the 4th option

"Unit -this-has- reached checkpoint -blank".

The moment you choose this option you can modify it to match your preference.

For example "has" might become "has not" or "this" might become " 3rd platoon of second company"

and the blank square can be filled with any checkpoint (or waypoint) you have set on map during the game design or during play.

So your instructions you give to your computer might be

Embark on route (to the subsequent checkpoint two) if you are the second platoon of the first company and you have reached checkpoint one.

If you want for example to coordinate a movement by bounds with one unit covered by another from a certain location,your indstructions might be

"embark on route if unit X has reached checkpoint c".

If you see the figure, you will notice that you have a lot of tools at your disposal to control things.

You might want for example to preplan a fragmentary plan-about a possible counterattack in one sector.

Of course you want to be sure that you attack with superior forces against the enemy.

So you might want to use the option

" friendly operational forces in area A (the area you define on map) are > enemy operational forces in area A

You might want to be even more secure by adding to the above sentence

AND enemy platoons - or tanks in area A <4-assumming that you plan to attack with a force of 10 for example

I could give dozens of ways i used this tool to design scenarios or play the game.

For example, especially since the game is real time, i plan some fragmentary complicated plans during the Pregame phase.

I can link each of this plan to a "trigger"-the first option in the figure.

The trigger is like the "go code" you transmit to your troops during the game.

Whenever i feel that i have the right opportunity, i click one button and that simulates the "go word" in order for the troops to start executing a complicated maneuver.

This is important for a real time game,since you do not have the time to issue complicated orders during play.

I have also used the figure in order to simulate effects of boundaries and risk of fraticide.

The tools you have already see can be used in connection with "penalty zones" a designer has drawn on the map.

So i can simulate a situation where whenever a certain unit violates a boundary, it will have a certain chance to be destroyed and link this to a pop up message informing the player that he received friendly fire and that unit was destroyed.

Or the unit might jump from human control to AI control for a certain time, or even having a radio loss or whatever else.

The new version of the game will give even more flexibility in planning "penalty zones".

Another issue which was mentioned here regarding cheating is present in the above diagram.

In the option described as operational enemy units anywhere < 0, the game designer can specify if the computer will count the "true" number of enemy units, or if it will count only the units that were observed and spotted by the computer units.

Using all the above tools and more i can not describe here, i was able to let AI resolve battles from the beginning to the end based on my plans for both sides or test my scenarios against human players with very good results and a beleivable behavor from ccomputer cotrolled units.

Of course the game has already a good AI and this is certainly a prerequirement in order to see all these "plans" executed in a reasonable manner.

You can not use the above tools if AI of the game in general is weak.

I hope i gave a good picture of the potentials of this method of control.

My intention was not to advertise another game.

After all i could not compare CM with this game since they are different .

CM is a wonderful game and i think one of the best for wwii tactical scenerios ,probably the best.

However since we talk about various ideas for the new engine, i think it is worth examining the example i gave, taken from a totally different game.

[ July 02, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[Cpl Steiner]

My thoughts on AI programming (for what they are worth, which admittedly probably isn't much).

A common tool used in programming for problem solving is "Recursion". This basically means that you break down a big problem into one much smaller problem, and develop a near perfect solution to the smaller problem. This solution can then be repeated many times to solve the big problem. An example is the "Tower of Hanoi" puzzle, in which the same very simple rule, applied many times, results in the puzzle as a whole being solved.

The simplest problem in CM is getting a single enemy unit off the ground it is holding, either by forcing it to break and rout, or eliminating it entirely.

The simplest way to achieve this is to move appropriate units into range and LOS of the enemy, so that you have more firepower directed at that enemy than is directed at your own units participating in the firefight (from any source).

If I was programming the AI for the next CM game (which thankfully I'm not) then I would try to work on the small scale firefight AI first and get it as near perfect in execution as possible. Faced with any given situation, the AI should be able to identify the most vulnerable enemy unit and maximise its firepower on that unit, using direct fire and short flanking moves that take no more than a couple of turns to execute. Units not in contact should just move to contact in the general direction of the objectives, using as much cover as possible, ready to set up the next firefight.

[Gromit]

g

[ July 13, 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Gromit ]

[Gromit]

g

[ July 13, 2005, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Gromit ]