SKELLEN Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 We are all aware of the AI niggles to some extent and we are expecting future improvements of course, but I have an idea that may have been mentioned before but that could be used to aid AI improvement. This is just an additional way of helping people improve the game on top of the future improvement to the AI btw. What I was thinking was to have a perimeter setting for the AI prior to entering the scenario as we do now by choosing which fog of war/setup etc., but have basic things like: 1) Stay in foxholes on defence 2) HQs remain to the rear of units 3) Armour minimum (x) amount distance from each other to avoid traffic jams 4) MGs also remain to the rear of units 5) Armour remain to the rear of infantry 6) Platton HQ remain with platoon 7) Platoon keep minimum (x) amount distance from each other to avoid mass slaughter in one area There could be others too but I think you get my drift by now, but I would like possibly to hear from BFC on this too and if this would be possible or not and if thay like/dislike this idea. This is just an example btw and I it may be worth considering if nothing else or you might have other ideas, who knows? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 For 1) you would need decent foxholes first. The effect of foxholes in CM is pretty minimal, e.g. 45% exposure for foxholes in the open. Get in front of a mirror and mark 45% of your body and ask youself whether you will leave that much of your upper body exposed when digging a foxhole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yapma Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 i think they are all excellent suggestions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weasleboy Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Yes,great suggestions. The seven you have here, are an excellent "base" to start with.( except number eight should be: use transport,tranport use roads,units get the HELL out of transport!). That may be more then one more suggestion, and I know it is, but I"m in full agreement with all your ideas. Excellent work SKELLEN 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Before giving up on the current AI entirely try playing a few scenarios always on level 1 (okay, level 2 in a pinch), no pre-overflight of the terrain map, and never venture beyond your own side's forward troops. Played this way artillery falling out of LOS REALLY falls out of LOS, and that PzIV that suddenly appears on your flank is genuinely horrifying to see! I've got to admit it takes nerves of steel to play this way and I'm only able to do it occassionally myself. But it REALLY changes the dynamics of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: Before giving up on the current AI entirely try playing a few scenarios always on level 1 (okay, level 2 in a pinch), no pre-overflight of the terrain map, and never venture beyond your own side's forward troops. Played this way artillery falling out of LOS REALLY falls out of LOS, and that PzIV that suddenly appears on your flank is genuinely horrifying to see! I've got to admit it takes nerves of steel to play this way and I'm only able to do it occassionally myself. But it REALLY changes the dynamics of the game. I think having a game option that sets the maximum camera level you're allowed to use would be an excellent thing to have. We could then play pbem games and both sides would be forced to play with limited views of the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Great idea - the Iron MAn rules incorporated within the game!! Tall buildings and high ground are then worth fighting for! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theike Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Tall buildings? are there tall buildings in CM? Tall pines u mean? (in witch engineers can climb as we al know) And the AI should try to stick to cover when it runs towards the flags it so badly wants. There should be a rule for troops to wait with the aproach untill its platoon or say HQ (if still alive) is around...more so: there should be a rule for the AI not to give up positions on other flags to go and get back the (just one) the attacker captured. [ September 14, 2004, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: theike ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingofclubs Posted September 21, 2004 Share Posted September 21, 2004 I am horrified when that tank shows up and I have scouted the complete map before hand. For some reason (must be the realism) I find playing fog of war stresses me to the max. Always looking for the companion that you know is there but has not been revealed yet. Just waiting to trip the ambush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 There were traffic jams of trucks and tanks trying to get to where ever they were supposed to get to in real world WW2 and they did make perfect targets for arty and fighter bombers. Maybe in CMx2 the scenario designer will have the ability to preplot the initial movement paths of on map and reinforcement troops and vehicles. Maybe this would help reduce unecessary traffic jams. ie tanks and vehicles milling around with no planned destination. I agree, a max level option would be a good thing also ,similar to fog of war. A lot of good suggestions on this thread. poppy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 Excuse me my ignorance,but what is D.I.Y. ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 do it yourself = diy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKELLEN Posted September 22, 2004 Author Share Posted September 22, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: do it yourself = diy Or as some would say 'Destroy it your self'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 22, 2004 Share Posted September 22, 2004 How appropriate in CM 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.