aka_tom_w Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Well... At least I did not open with "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance AND the CMx2 AI" OK so what is this noise all about this time....????? The last time the Eagles toured it was the "Hell Freezes Over Tour" ... they got back together because they saw a profit potential and the figured they could get away with chargeing $100 per ticket (this was 10 years ago!). (/93? /94?) So what is the point here.... The Eagles felt their target audience could afford a premium (Way OUT of line a the time) ticket price. Mostly their fans were older and indeed COULD afford the $100 ticket price and IIRC the tour was a huge success. (I guess they Made a HUGE amount of money from ticket sales!) NOW about the CMx2 AI This may not be popular suggestion but the target market here might pay a premium price for GOOD Unit and COMPETENT Soldier AI. The Artificial inteligence in CMx2 needs to work much better than in CMx1 and this will likey cost more. (For sure, it will take up a great deal more of Charles' time and energey.) Steve says: "The 1:1 representation requires more levels of AI. In CMx1 we had Tac, Op, and Strat to handle individual units, groups of untis, and the overall plan. In CMx2 we need to have things a bit more separated. It is, mostly, a top down type system... StratAI - decides what the missions are, who is going to carry them out, and other such parameters. OpAI - determines what a formation of units should be doing in order to fulfill its mission. TacAI - governs each individual unit's behavior as directed from above. This is where a tank decides it needs to move over to a specific position in order to get a good flank shot on an enemy tank, or a squad knows that it should not walk into the middle of a large volume of enemy fire. UnitAI - what the individual soldiers within a unit should be doing in relation to each other. For example, a HMG has one guy firing, another loading, and a couple of guys providing covering fire. SoldierAI - in charge of the graphical representation a soldier should be using at that given time in that given situation. For example, assaulting under fire when armed with a rifle requires animations and actions a, b, and c. I'm not sure how Charles is going to program all of this stuff from an organizational standpoint, so the above is purely theory at the moment. In one way or another, however, all of the above needs to happen for the game to function correctly." So.... I think they have always been loath to bring in extra programer help for their games, but why not hire (for a 1 year contract) a gaming AI wizard? Is there such a thing? I don't know? How much would this skill set cost? I have no idea But the suggestion is to offer CMx2 at premium price (maybe even double what they have in mind) so that BFC could afford a "hired gun" for the AI component of the game?? I am not a marketing whizzard and I have NO idea how to manage a profitable software gaming company, so this is probably just another whacky hairbrain scheme :confused: . But I am guessing the hard core target market here would pay the premium price for the BEST AI available. (I know I would !) I am not suggesting we need the AI to be good or even great as an opponent, I am just suggesting the that Unit AI and the Soldier AI (for your own units) needs to bordering on state of the art to make this thing fly right and maybe BFC should consider a "hired Gun" AI wiz maybe fresh out of college. (I work with college students and grad students everyday, and everyday I am blown away by how fast they learn and what they can accomplish if they are challenged and highly motivated! I would say some of them are very motivated to design and develop projects and complete assignments that will wildly impress potential employers, however the students I work with DON'T know anything about Artificial Inteligence (sadly), they are web designers and graphic designers) Just a thought... -tom w [ January 27, 2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Do you imply that Charles cannot handle the task?! I think the really scary message is: I'm not sure how Charles is going to program all of this stuff ...Maybe it is just semantics, but does that not imply that at present there is no AI available?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Tom, seriously, you need to stop worrying about this **** and just let them design stuff. If you keep blathering on and on about stuff you know jack about, they're going to stop reading the forum altogether. Why are you making them defend themselves before they've even done anything? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 I'm JUST saying Charle is JUST one guy and this looks like a REALLY big job. Given enough time (they still have 12 months or more if they want I guess) I am sure Charles can get the job done! Heck I think it was he and Matt that single handedly invented the revolutionary Death Clock for tanks in CMBB, so for sure they are more than a few VERY clever minds at work over there. I am just saying: "Throw Money at it." Where I work, that's usually how really stubborn problems get solved. -tom w Originally posted by Rollstoy: Do you imply that Charles cannot handle the task?! I think the really scary message is: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm not sure how Charles is going to program all of this stuff ...Maybe it is just semantics, but does that not imply that at present there is no AI available?! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I am just saying: "Throw Money at it." Where I work, that's usually how really stubborn problems get solved. Let me guess: you're a manager, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Well, for the record, I would certainly be happy to pay a premium price for an (even more)premium product. However, I suspect, from a marketing perspective that will not happen and, no doubt, the usual "I've been saving for two years to buy CMAK and couldn't possibly afford premium prices" brigade will have something to say. On the other hand, Matrix, I believe, have charged "premium" rates for some of their more recent releases (premium, in the sense of higher than normal or average game prices) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I'm JUST saying Charle is JUST one guy and this looks like a REALLY big job.Some people like really big jobs and take pride of ownership. I started a website a few years ago that has blossomed out of my ability to update it regularly. Wouldn't dream of having anyone else touch it. They wouldn't know where to begin. I rather suspect computer code is like that - from my minimum of experience just programming in BASIC 20 years ago, I don't think that's a huge secret. But of course I HAVE NO IDEA which is rather the point... Given enough time (they still have 12 months or more if they want I guess) I am sure Charles can get the job done! Heck I think it was he and Matt that single handedly invented the revolutionary Death Clock for tanks in CMBB, so for sure they are more than a few VERY clever minds at work over there. I am just saying: "Throw Money at it." Where I work, that's usually how really stubborn problems get solved. -tom w I take it you are a teacher (ie interact with college kids?) Imagine if I read a bunch of articles on teaching, then posted to a message board hosted by your university offering you 3000 tips on how to teach without ever having not only taught anything myself, but never having set foot in your classroom Doesn't make much sense to me. You keep saying how much you trust them to get the job done, then in the next breath tell them their approach is fundamentally wrong. I don't think you need to plant your lips quite so firmly on their asscheeks - when it comes out, I'm positive they'll let you buy a copy. And if they don't, I promise to buy one for you. It will be my pleasure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 I know that Steve tells us: "As you all know, there are two universal rules that we must pay attention to: 1. Time is Money 2. Time is Limited Then there is that Death and Taxes thingy too, but that doesn't come into play here Steve" So factoring in that, PLUS Steve said he did not know how Charles would do it all, I sort of spewed forth a whacky idea of how to make more money to afford help in the AI dept. But I guess I don't know jack about that so I will just crawl back into my hole. (Ha! You should be so lucky ) -tom w Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Tom, seriously, you need to stop worrying about this **** and just let them design stuff. If you keep blathering on and on about stuff you know jack about, they're going to stop reading the forum altogether. Why are you making them defend themselves before they've even done anything? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 Thanks for being so positive Jim! I was hoping I might see a few posts like your in response. AND If "I've been saving for two years to buy CMAK and couldn't possibly afford premium prices" Then guess what? ... May I suggest you can't afford the kind of hardware you are going to need to play this game on so go back to CMx1..... I figure this game has been about 2 years in the making, so if it is the only game you are buying and in the past you bought 1 game per year then in Winter 2006 when it is released you can afford to pay twice as much because you did not buy any new games for the past two years. (Or something like that.) -tom w Originally posted by jim crowley: Well, for the record, I would certainly be happy to pay a premium price for an (even more)premium product. However, I suspect, from a marketing perspective that will not happen and, no doubt, the usual "I've been saving for two years to buy CMAK and couldn't possibly afford premium prices" brigade will have something to say. On the other hand, Matrix, I believe, have charged "premium" rates for some of their more recent releases (premium, in the sense of higher than normal or average game prices) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 27, 2005 Author Share Posted January 27, 2005 OK Maybe I meant.... "Throw Money at it." (And charge more for the game, claiming premium AI features) AND yes that is a VERY difficult claim to justify! So yeah Dorosh is Right, it won't work and it was a really lousy idea. -tom w Originally posted by rleete: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I am just saying: "Throw Money at it." Where I work, that's usually how really stubborn problems get solved. Let me guess: you're a manager, right? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rleete Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 What I meant was, throwing money at a problem is usually reserved for those who have no idea what the problem really is, or how to solve it. Governments and managers are the usual examples. Let BFC do their thing, their own way. Up until now, they've gotten the vast majority of it right all on their own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I would pay a premium price but I already am a hardcore Combat Mission fan. I assume, however, that Battlefront wishes to expand its market with CMX2 so, in that context, it would probably be a bad marketing decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigduke6 Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 You guys are assuming BFC has an bank account, income stream, or a credit rating so that they can cover a year's work by a hired-gun programmer, before the game starts returning the cash invested. What's more, getting Charles an extra pair of hands for CMX2 implies BFI has no project more likely to be profitable, and so worth sinking capital into. Since the answers to those questions are none of our business (last I heard BFI shares weren't publicly traded) my vote is we leave the hiring decisions to the people in the know, which ain't us. Our job here is to be the grogs. We have to know things like the number of gunpower grains in a 76,2mm AP shell, the exact shade of paint Afrika Korps vehicles had that cool palm-tree emblem painted in, what happened to Task Force Baum, and of course we are morally oblige to know about Tiger tanks - how many teeth on the drive sprocket, number of 88mm illum rounds carried at the Bulge - than Henschel's own engineers. This is much more fun and interesting than running a software company, which is why we pay BFC to do that for us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by Sequoia: I would pay a premium price but I already am a hardcore Combat Mission fan. I assume, however, that Battlefront wishes to expand its market with CMX2 so, in that context, it would probably be a bad marketing decision. This is presuming the product was something you wanted. I'm not saying good vice bad. There are lots of really great games out there that I have no interest in. Call of Duty gets raves here, but after playing the demo, the game really doesn't interest me. Given the paucity of information we have of what the game will do, I don't think any of us are really able to judge (outside the junkies who buy every game regardless) of what you will or will not pay for. At least wait for a screenshot or two. Personally, I'll be waiting for the demo. Although, the videos for TAKE COMMAND have me sold without a demo - I'm just hoping EB will be carrying it here in Canada. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Gee, I can't imagine why the BFC guys were loath to open even preliminary discussions about CMx2. Sheesh. -dale p.s. Hey Michael, I wager you 5,000 quatloos that within 10 posts someone demands that BFC release their CMx1 sales figures and then derides them for being unwilling to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: Gee, I can't imagine why the BFC guys were loath to open even preliminary discussions about CMx2. Sheesh. -dale p.s. Hey Michael, I wager you 5,000 quatloos that within 10 posts someone demands that BFC release their CMx1 sales figures and then derides them for being unwilling to do so. I will accept your bet, and bet you further that the poster will have no relevant personal experience with "sales figures", small business, or internet marketing to boot. If it turns out he works in a parking garage and is "saving up" for an XBOX you will need to pay me a 500 quatloo bonus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by Bigduke6: You guys are assuming BFC has an bank account, income stream, or a credit rating so that they can cover a year's work by a hired-gun programmer, before the game starts returning the cash invested. What's more, getting Charles an extra pair of hands for CMX2 implies BFI has no project more likely to be profitable, and so worth sinking capital into. Since the answers to those questions are none of our business (last I heard BFI shares weren't publicly traded) my vote is we leave the hiring decisions to the people in the know, which ain't us. Our job here is to be the grogs. We have to know things like the number of gunpower grains in a 76,2mm AP shell, the exact shade of paint Afrika Korps vehicles had that cool palm-tree emblem painted in, what happened to Task Force Baum, and of course we are morally oblige to know about Tiger tanks - how many teeth on the drive sprocket, number of 88mm illum rounds carried at the Bulge - than Henschel's own engineers. This is much more fun and interesting than running a software company, which is why we pay BFC to do that for us. I may frame this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Well, you may have heard Peter Molyneux is producing a game "The Movies" about running a movie studio. Perhaps he can follow it up with "PC Game Developer Tycoon"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: Gee, I can't imagine why the BFC guys were loath to open even preliminary discussions about CMx2. Sheesh. -dale p.s. Hey Michael, I wager you 5,000 quatloos that within 10 posts someone demands that BFC release their CMx1 sales figures and then derides them for being unwilling to do so. I will accept your bet, and bet you further that the poster will have no relevant personal experience with "sales figures", small business, or internet marketing to boot. If it turns out he works in a parking garage and is "saving up" for an XBOX you will need to pay me a 500 quatloo bonus. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Hmmm... to judge by some of these posts BFC have already taken on more staff...spokesmen. In his obvious enthusiasm for CMx2 (a bad thing??), Tom has merely put forward a suggestion which, IMO, has merit, at least generically. Outsourcing some tasks to professional third parties is often a very good way to run a business. Whether this is needed or desired by BFC at this time is, of course, entirely up to them. But they have done so before, at least in the graphics department, so perhaps the suggestion isn't that far off after all. Irrespective of all that, I dont see that Tom was inferring any deficiency in the abilities of BFC; I'm sure if he had intended that, he would have been big enough to say it. Nor do I think BFC feel insulted by his post; I'm equally sure they are big and hairy enough to defend their own turf without all and sundry jumping up and down at other posters suggestions. I've seen enough apparently lame-brained ideas turned into useful results to simply dismiss suggestions, of any type, being barred. And yes, I am a partner and a director in a business and have been around the block (and the clock!) a few times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 BFC I want to know how much you SOB's made on Combat Mission. If you refuse to tell me I will eat your children and fill Charlie's nutrient tank with Mr Plumber. Not only will this be unpleasant for ole Chuck in a bottle, it'll derive you of your disembodied brain trust. If this still does not convince you to fork over the figures I will wax Maddmat's head down with Preperation H causing it to shrink until there is nothing left but a wrinkle with ears. I have no concept of sales, internet figures, or business practices of any kind but I do work in a parking garage and am saving up for a PLAYSTATION....incidently will there be a CMx2 port for PS2? Computers are for XOR N00B Homos!!! Not Mord, Someone else 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Well... [Eagles snipped, I'm not sure what they were doing there] Steve says: "The 1:1 representation requires more levels of AI. In CMx1 we had Tac, Op, and Strat to handle individual units, groups of untis, and the overall plan. In CMx2 we need to have things a bit more separated. It is, mostly, a top down type system... [snips] So.... I think they have always been loath to bring in extra programer help for their games, but why not hire (for a 1 year contract) a gaming AI wizard? Is there such a thing? I don't know? How much would this skill set cost? I have no idea Please don't say "skill set", it makes my palms itch. I doubt that much good would come of renting a member of the artifical intelligentsia. I've never thought it sensible for a company to contract out the understsanding of its core business (which I think developing good game AI is for Battlefront). Some time ago -- months, possibly years -- I mentioned agent-based programming as a possible way forward (in that case, as an answer to Borg spotting, by giving each agent its own memory and awareness of its surroundings). A three-minute noddy tutorial on agents follows. Skip to the >>> if you already know it. Agents are software objects that display autonomous behaviour and have a well-defined separation from their environment (which includes other agents). They may only know about their environment through their sensors, and they may only manipulate it through their effectors. Their decision-making may be based on reactive (stimulus-response), deliberative (planning, forward and backeward chaining) or affective (based on internal "emotional" state) behaviour, or any combination of the three. A common flavour of agent is the BDI agent, BDI standing for belief, desire and intention. Agents of this kind hold beliefs about the external world, and have desires (goals) they wish to achieve, to which they may form intentions, possibly in collaboration with other agents. The first cognitive agent architecture, SOAR, is claimed to be based on the architecture of the human brain, but many agent architectures exist, and DoD is currently engaged in integrating Jack agents into the OneSAF distributed simulation project. >>> Right. Now, my point here is, in real military C2 systems, there are not multiple layers of intelligence. There are multiple layers of command, sure, but Colonels do not have more brain-cells than lieutenants (thought they have more experience and more staff helping them); all human command is done by one kind of intelligent machine, the same sesquikilogramme wet grey model you have between your ears. By the mechanism of "chunking", commanders at each level only deal with a number of items within their Hrair limit (one to three groups of one to three things). The fact that a brigade displays more complex behaviour than a platoon does not mean that it is controlled by more sophisticated brains, but that the richer behaviour emerges from the interactions of many more brains of the same kind. So, if you can find a really good human behaviour model, including a "chunking" mechanism, then you do not need distinct multi-level AI elements, and certainly nothing "top-down". Imagine something like a military version of the Sims. The only reasons I can think of for Battlefront not to pursue such a course are 1. They have repeatedly said, and have been strongly supported by the likes of Kip Anderson in saying, that they do not want CM to become a "command game", which an agent-based approach would I think make it hard to avoid. I would buy a military version of the Sims, with the player very little able to influence the behaviour of their animated soldiers, but how many other people would? 2. Agent-based simulation of human behaviour in combat is, as indicated above, currently a research topic. The OneSAF guys (supported by the full resources of the Pentagon) plan to get BDI agents into OneSAF just well enought to control a set-piece company attack over the next couple fo years. Then again, I don't doubt that Charles could probably whip up something better than any current government C2 simulation if he decided to and you gave him a year or two at it. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I think we need to keep in mind that these guys already have 5 years or so of Combat Mission AI programming experience. The plan for the new game engine has been underway for at least a year or two, even if the actual programming is only now hitting full gear. So I don't think having one guy/brain programming is as detrimental as it would be if this was an entirely unique project. Remember we got CMBO in all it's imperfect glory when these guys first made a game, but every release since then has improved in leaps and bounds, and CMX2 will be an extension of that knowledge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Znarf Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I think they have always been loath to bring in extra programer help for their games, but why not hire (for a 1 year contract) a gaming AI wizard? Is there such a thing? I don't know? How much would this skill set cost? I have no idea -tom w Tom, More is better? Well, the next time you have your prostate checked, ask for an extra doctor to go "under the hood" with your regular physician at the same time. Let us know if the examination proceeds more quickly and with better results. In good humor... Znarf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Thanks Jim There has been plenty of ranting and raving in this thread, and to be honest I half expected it. (thanks to all the contributors) One issue or "challenge" that has never really been mentioned here is that it is Charles (presumably alone) who must code up TWO games in the next 12 (ish) months! Why two games, well if they still plan to release the Mac version and the PC version simulatneously then that sounds like two sets of game code to me. Some here might say its no big deal because it is the same code. I don't know about that, but as far as I can tell there are NO other game developers that have the history of simlutaneous Mac and PC game releases that BFC has. (So it can't be all that simple or easy) BFC is so far 3 out of 3! So what am I saying? Charles has to invent TWO new levels of Artificial Inteligence (Soldier AI and Unit AI) and make the graphics engine run on both MAC and PC, AND code the rest of the game for simultaneous release. NO other game developer does it this way. (Most, if not all, just simply say screw the Mac users and they can wait 6-8 months for a crappy "port" over to OS X by some third party port-over company.) I KNOW BFC and Charles can do this, I just think it is starting to look REALLY optimistic that it will be ready (both Mac and PC with 5 functional Levels of AI) for release on or before Dec 31 2005. So what is my point? If they do nothing and Charles does it ALL it will take longer... Oh Well.... I guess thats why their motto is "When its ready, and NOT before!" From what Steve tells us, this looks like a VERY ambitious project to be sure! I truly hope the project comes together smoothly and they don't run into any really big obstacles, snags, or problems on the way. -tom w Originally posted by jim crowley: Hmmm... to judge by some of these posts BFC have already taken on more staff...spokesmen. In his obvious enthusiasm for CMx2 (a bad thing??), Tom has merely put forward a suggestion which, IMO, has merit, at least generically. Outsourcing some tasks to professional third parties is often a very good way to run a business. Whether this is needed or desired by BFC at this time is, of course, entirely up to them. But they have done so before, at least in the graphics department, so perhaps the suggestion isn't that far off after all. Irrespective of all that, I dont see that Tom was inferring any deficiency in the abilities of BFC; I'm sure if he had intended that, he would have been big enough to say it. Nor do I think BFC feel insulted by his post; I'm equally sure they are big and hairy enough to defend their own turf without all and sundry jumping up and down at other posters suggestions. I've seen enough apparently lame-brained ideas turned into useful results to simply dismiss suggestions, of any type, being barred. And yes, I am a partner and a director in a business and have been around the block (and the clock!) a few times. [ January 27, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 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.