moosehead Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I am sad to see, but not overly surprised, to see one of the biggest AI flaws, is still present in the 3rd go round of this game. I am talking about the chicken dance(CMBO) , or probably better described as the chicken crawl in CMBB and CMAK. This is when the unit is looking for cover and seeks what it thinks is the best cover. Even if it means going straight at the enemy in open ground, when just 2 ft away is a nice comfy foxhole or hill to hide behind. And Im not talking only about units that have broken, panicked or routed. If there is only one patch to this game it has to be this one, as it is the only real one that stands out and ruins the play of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by moosehead: If there is only one patch to this game it has to be this one, as it is the only real one that stands out and ruins the play of the game. Dont hold your breath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 This 'bug' may not be completely fixable with the way the current engine works. Any hack to force a different behavior in this circumstance may screw up other AI routines. It is understandably frustrating to watch this occur in CM, but the 'fix' for this is probably beyond the current engine's capabilities. Hopefully the next engine, CMx2, will be providing much more info for each unit. With this additional data the AI should hopefully be able to make more 'natural' decisions. As simple as this issue may appear to gamers, it is incredibly complex for the programmer(s). You'll also hear complaints about 'pathfinding' in all sorts of games - and you'd think that this would be a 'fairly simple issue', but it's not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthless Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 As I understand it, the problem is not that the unit can't find good cover (like a nearby foxhole or woods), but that it is incapable of distinguishing LOS-blocking. That is, the AI doesn't know that a few feet away is terrain which will block LOS; rather it seems the AI seeks out the terrain tiles that are relatively close (and usually that are further from the enemy or at least no closer) which provide better cover (meaning the TacAI checks the cover/concealment values for terrain tiles and how far away they are.) I agree this is a significant problem with their TacAI. I'd offer the suggestion that the player can designate to a unit a single waypoint during each orders phase for them to fall back to if they come under fire. That would be a lot simpler than adding the necessary code to the AI, but perhaps with the new game engine coming out (in a few years?) that problem will be squashed with improved TacAI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 BFC has said on multiple occasions that this behavior is mainly due to lack of a "positional memory" for units, i.e. they don't "know" where they are like we think they do. This cannot be addressed until CM2. I amy have gotten part of that wrong, so a search in the CM:BB threads will get the official word. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosehead Posted January 17, 2004 Author Share Posted January 17, 2004 I'd offer the suggestion that the player can designate to a unit a single waypoint during each orders phase for them to fall back to if they come under fire. Or even simpler, is to have them go back to where they came from.Follow their own waypoints back! Whats even more frustrating, is I give them orders to make their way back to cover, and they ignore it and continue off on there path to death. Most casulties are from the chicken dance of death. :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthless Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Originally posted by moosehead: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'd offer the suggestion that the player can designate to a unit a single waypoint during each orders phase for them to fall back to if they come under fire. Or even simpler, is to have them go back to where they came from.Follow their own waypoints back! Whats even more frustrating, is I give them orders to make their way back to cover, and they ignore it and continue off on there path to death. Most casulties are from the chicken dance of death. :mad: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by dalem: I amy have gotten part of that wrong Hi, amy. =) Kitty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: I amy have gotten part of that wrong Hi, amy. =) Kitty </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 "Impossible with the current engine", "can't be changed in the code" Didn't we hear the same things said about multiple turrets? Running for cover away from the enemy is basic a logic problem for the AI: IF there's cover is close by AND it is away from the enemy THEN run there. Simplified, yes, but I'd think that programming self preservation has to be the easiest part of programming the AI. I don't see why it couldn't have been fixed in CMBB. Gyrene 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by Gyrene: "Impossible with the current engine", "can't be changed in the code" Didn't we hear the same things said about multiple turrets?And they weren't fixed either. We don't have true multiple turrets capable of engaging seperate targets...so your analogy is a bit OFF... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by Gyrene: Simplified, yes, but I'd think that programming self preservation has to be the easiest part of programming the AI. I don't see why it couldn't have been fixed in CMBB. Gyrene If Charles couldn't make it any better, then I don't think the solution would be simple. Not because he's the Messiah of programming, but because he's coded the thing and I'd assume him to know the problem better than you. 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.