Engine rewrite .. single player mode

[aka_tom_w]

Steve says

"However, unlike a command level game, the player would still be just as

involved in the game as right now. No sitting back and watching 10 turns without interaction. That is

not something we want to make. We'd be out of business soon after if we did "

Yeah but as it is now players can set up a head to head TCP/IP match with the 1 min timer and sit back and watch.

So given all the new features you gotta know someone will attempt to prevert your new system so they can sit back and watch the action unfold. The problem now is that you cannot set the timer in a game against the AI.

NOW if you could set the timer to 1 min or better yet, O min in the new CMII to use it against the AI then you could "sort of" play AI vs AI by setting up all the orders on the first move and let it play out minute by minute against the AI and sit back and watch

Just for fun mind you

-tom w

[ December 10, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[WWB]

Steve,

I must say I like your thinking. The last thing I wanted to see CMII scenario design was was an AI scripting exercise. But, while we have your attention, I think there are a few other factors that shoudl not be forgotten:

A) Ingame factors:

1) One thing that has not been mentioned yet is the need for some kind of events system. Events could be things such as one side taking a certain position, crossing a line, a random time factor, a certain unit getting destroyed, etc. These event triggers could then kick in effects such as reinfrocements, point bonuses and more. Moreover, these events could have a set time where they could be triggered. After which they become irrelevant.

2) Multiple Versions in one file: What I mean by this is letting one use the same map and generate 3 different battles for multiplayer and each side vs the AI. Well, maybe more considering the expanded multiplayer aspects to CMII.

3) Debriefings dispalyed only after the battle has been finished.

4) More metadata for scenario listing, letting people search for the types of battles they want to play.

Editor issues:

1) Cut & Paste! Especially if I am making 3mx3m tiles, it will be real handy.

2) More hotkeys.

3) Setup the editor as a separate, windows (or normal mac OS) friendly program running in a window rather than locked into fullscreen mode. This would be real handy as most editing I do ends up being a long string of alt-tabbing between an on-screen source and the editor.

WWB

[WWB]

Bump so steve might see my blabberings.

WWB

[MikeyD]

Speaking as one of those sitting-in-bathrobe-with-pretzels players, my dream (which I don't expect to come true) would be AI vs AI play! Imagine all the glassy-eyed drool-soaked enjoyment. :eek:

[ December 11, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[WWB]

Actually, I would not mind seeing this myself. From a designers perspective it would let one check some basic things, such as reinforcement locations and timings, without a time-costly hotseat session.

WWB

[Alkiviadis]

I don't disagree with any of the above pro or contra, and I'm seeking as an ex software engineer - I'm a victom of programmer burnout, too many projects that were death marches. But the AI can be quite challenging if one plays with Franko's real combat rules.

[kevinkins]

AI vs AI has been a request on and off over the years. It should be considered to help play test new battles.

From BattleFront:

"Hints - in the editor the player will have the ability to "suggest" various things for the StratAI to consider. For example, advance routes, defensive lines, strategic terrain features, etc. These hints are designed to help the AI make dynamic and unscsripted decisions, not to force it to behave a certain way all the time every time. However, it is likely that the player can do this if he really wants to."

Again another approach talked about in the past.

I am happy to see it being considered.

The AI does a great job finding and firing on the enemy. It needs some help moving around the battlefield. Hints and grouping units into formations with a common goal may be great way to

kick the AI up a notch in effectivness.

In the editor ... it would be nice if the reinforcment marker not only told us the reinforcment number but also the turn they come

in.

Kevin

[Lt Bull]

The concept of the "invisible flags" seems a good "easy" way to "guide" the StratAI within scenarios.

Although I already have discussed some views on the StratAI earlier on, there was one other issue that I my not have made too apparent but one I think is very important to keep in mind in the discussion of the creation/development of any computer game. The relationship between:

(a) the features, rules, complexity and intricacies of the game itself and;

( the ability to program/code an AI to be a CPU opponent in the game.

(a) can be limited by (, and there are some things that are possible and seem great to implement in (a) but present major headaches when considering how ( is going to handle it. There are also things in (a) that a player sees that are only there for the benefit of (, which really is of no consequence to the player. I would say this surely is a conflict that BTS deal with.

Few computer games are designed for multiplayer play only. However, those that are (or are focused on the multiplayer aspect) are developed WITHOUT the "burden" of programming/coding an AI to be a CPU opponent. The players of the game they create already come with their own highly developed CPU that can adapt itself to any rules they make. They enjoy a "creative freedom" that can not exist if they had to worry about coding a computer CPU opponent. All they need to worry about is "the game itself" and improving the ACTUAL game so that REAL PEOPLE can play it and enjoy it. The conflict we are talking about kind of reminds me of (please excuse the example ) a family going on holidays with a nagging grandparent that has to be consulted on every decision on what the "fun-seeking" family should do.

KIDS: "Hey, we can go to the fun park and go on all those rides, it will be great. Look at all this cool new stuff we could try".

PARENT: "Now we are not going anywhere unless it is OK with Grandma. If she can't handle the rides and crowds, then we are not going. Grandma, what do you say?".

GRANMA: "Ahh, there is no way I could handle those rides, let alone those noisy crowds. Let’s just do what we always do. Play Scrabble. I’m good at Scrabble. I know you all know that game."

PARENT: "Well kids, this family is not going to do things separately and we are always going to do everything together. So, the only way to do that is to do something that we know we can all enjoy and participate in."

KIDS: "But muuumm..."

PARENTS: "I’m sorry but that's how it is. OK, so let's get out the Scrabble."

GRANDMA: "Did I tell you I bought new green

coloured Scrabble tiles to play with and new gold coloured tile holders! They will be more fun than the old cream coloured tiles and wooden holders. Now someone please get me my special Scrabble chair. I need my special Scrabble chair to sit in if we are going to play."

KIDS:

Extreme? Perhaps, but I think it gets the point across.

What this thread is talking about is mainly related to how can be improved based on a game system model that has undergone very little fundamental change since we first saw it some 4 years ago. More so with relation to what ULTIMATELY drives and is the GOAL of the StratAI CPU opponent (or even the human opponent for that matter): the conditions that result in victory. What happens if BTS wants to develop this area? (I sure do hope they do).

Herein lies another angle to the conflict between a) and . How much will the advancement of CM as a game be affected by the need to ensure an AI can be coded for it? Will the advancement of the current 4 year old model for determining victory in CM (victory flags, points etc) remain unchanged in the next CM because that is all the StratAI can understand? I have a bundle of ideas for making CM victory determination more interesting (and perhaps more realistic) but would a StratAI be able to handle them as easily as a human could?

So really, it comes down to "let’s see if Grandma is up to it".

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Keep in mind that CM was coded before we "knew what we were doing". What I mean by that is EVERYTHING we did, or nearly so, was an experiment. Like all good experiments conducted by learned scientists, they were well thought out ahead of time and set up with great care. However, not all things tried come out equally well; not all things needed to be tried are; and some things that never should have been tried were.

The fact that people are STILL ga-ga over CMBO after 3 heavy years of play since Beta Demo proves that we got the important stuff spot on or close enough. However, we know of things we were not able to do and some things that could have been done better. Many of these things were addressed in CMBB, but some require the old code to be chucked out.

My point here is that the most difficult thing to get right is the conceptualization of something and making it fit cohesively with everything else. Thanks to Charles the coding aspect is not much of an issue unless what is thought up is simply not practical/possible. Because we now have 5 years of development of CM under our belts, we feel we have a much more "enlightened" view of what we need to do for the new engine.

The cool thing is that some of the stuff we are planning, such as a new Editor, will probably not take much more time than the original one yet the end result should be 10 times easier to use, powerful, and supportive of other concepts which the current Editor can not support easily.

Lt. Bull's logic about a) and are correct, but what he defined as is not. It isn't the StratAI that is the potential hurdle for us, rather the TacAI. For example...

There is no deceleration model in CM. Why? Well, for one thing Charles didn't feel he had the time to screw around with the TacAI for this. "I see a target and am going x MPH. I need to decelerate so I can engage the target in the best possible spot and/or best possible time. What needs to be done to accomplish this?" This is a tough problem even for a Human, not to mention an AI.

If there is no TacAI to handle deceleration, then there is no worries at the StratAI level because... well... because there is nothing the StratAI has to think about Combining a similar CMBO/BB StratAI with the new "hints" and stuff mentioned above will produce a MUCH better StratAI with very little "expensive" AI programming. And that is cool.

The problem with CM's initial development was that Charles also knew that he had 10,000 other things that needed to be programmed in order for the game to function correctly. A lot of that time he knew had to be spent on thinking up the solution, going down deadend roads, coding, and perhaps even recoding. Because of this a few things had to abstracted more than we wanted to or skipped altogether.

OK, so what is different this time? We have 5 years of hindsight, experience, and reassurance behind us. We know EXACTLY how 80% of the rewrite needs to be written/rewritten. That is a lot of work, for sure, but it means we only have to cut our teeth on 20% compared to CMBO's 100%. Or somefink like that

What it all boils down to is that we will be able to do more things better than we did before, and still have "plenty" of time to put in the stuff we either couldn't do or didn't think of at the time CMBO was developed.

And if you think we are looking forward to rewriting the engine... you're right

Steve

[ December 12, 2002, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[aka_tom_w]

"The cool thing is that some of the stuff we are planning, such as a new Editor, will probably not take

much more time than the original one yet the end result should be 10 times easier to use, powerful,

and supportive of other concepts which the current Editor can not support easily."

OK then!

that is GREAT news in and of itself!

We are of course hopeing to see a MUCH more user friendly interface and if I may say so I hope Deanco is heavily involved in the interface design to make it a little prettier and MUCH more user friendly

Thanks Steve!

Great post

2 years seems like a LONG time to wait for the NEXT big thing! I'm still predicting we won't actually get to play it until May/June/July 2005.

The question then is, how FAST or capable will the "average consumer level" computer be at that time?

I suspect it will be FAST, maybe a minimum CPU speed of 1 gHz with a minimum 32 megs of V-RAM?

So the game "should" look STUNNING!

Now the obvious question is which theatre of operations do we get to play in?

And my answer is of course, ALL OF THEM!!! (Except the PTO of course)

Just a little hint there

-tom w

[ December 12, 2002, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Engel]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I suspect it will be FAST, maybe a minimum CPU speed of 1 gHz with a minimum 32 megs of V-RAM?

I'll say this again, 'cos I found it quite amusing... one Intel rep referred to a 2.4GHz Pentium4 as an "old basic PC" when demoing their new 3.4GHz processor... so if you have those old-fashioned basic Pc's lying around, I'll be happy to take them off your hands at no charge.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Engel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I suspect it will be FAST, maybe a minimum CPU speed of 1 gHz with a minimum 32 megs of V-RAM?

I'll say this again, 'cos I found it quite amusing... one Intel rep referred to a 2.4GHz Pentium4 as an "old basic PC" when demoing their new 3.4GHz processor... so if you have those old-fashioned basic Pc's lying around, I'll be happy to take them off your hands at no charge.</font>

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

And if you think we are looking forward to rewriting the engine... you're right

For me, that is a very reassuring fact! Great news indeed...

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It isn't the StratAI that is the potential hurdle for us, rather the TacAI.

It is interesting that you consider the TacAI as being the potential hurdle as opposed to the StratAI as I would say that with CMBO/CMBB, the TacAI hurdle has been better negotiated than the StratAI hurdle. I can definitely see how the TacAI is critically more important than the StratAI and how it lies in the HEART of CM (the generation and execution of the 1min movies where the TacAI can take over) so we shouldn't be too surprised that the TacAI is as good as it is. Ultimately, the TacAI is a common factor essential for both head-to-head and CPU opponent games so not getting it right would result in problems in both camps. No point in thinking about the StratAI if the TacAI is bung.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is a tough problem even for a Human, not to mention an AI.....If there is no TacAI to handle deceleration, then there is no worries at the StratAI level because... well... because there is nothing the StratAI has to think about

The "deceleration modelling" example is a fantastic example of "that would be more 'realistic' but how would you code it?" and perhaps a deceptively difficult one at that. I have considered "deceleration modelling" several times myself as I watched CM movie replays. Would it be a step towards making the game more "realistic"? Yes. Is it really that important to include in the CM world? Probably not, though would be damn cool!. Is it a potential headache and Pandoras Box? Seems so though BTS have the acceleration part modelled and working OK. Now just for the end bit of the movement. It sure would be a fine example of quality coding skills if it could be done anyways.

I guess my (a) and ( type and "family holiday" analogy comments really should not just apply to the StratAI, but extend to the TacAI as well.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

OK, so what is different this time? We have 5 years of hindsight, experience, and reassurance behind us. We know EXACTLY how 80% of the rewrite needs to be written/rewritten. That is a lot of work, for sure, but it means we only have to cut our teeth on 20% compared to CMBO's 100%. Or somefink like that

What it all boils down to is that we will be able to do more things better than we did before, and still have "plenty" of time to put in the stuff we either couldn't do or didn't think of at the time CMBO was developed.

And if you think we are looking forward to rewriting the engine... you're right

All good news It will be interesting to follow the evolution.

Lt Bull

[MikeyD]

No criticism of the current AI is intended on my part. I've played the game enough to know most of it's tricks and limitations but still the AI regularly hands me my head during games (maybe I'm just a lousy tactician!)

[CavalryMan]

Given all the hints that the rewrite will look and feel so great I wonder if Charles has knocked together some samples (in his free time of course). If he has how long till a bone is released?

[MikeyD]

Hey, forget about throwing bones on the distant rewrite, I want to know what vehicle polygons are going to be updated in the (eventual) 1.02 patch!

[Thomm]

I wonder if the three men style squad display does not place high restrictions on the graphical quality of the game.

At a point where the rest of the graphics have reached "photorealistic" quality, displaying 3 highly detailed soldiers might appear inappropriate? Or not?

In any case, do not forget to display MASSIVE amounts of smoke and dust in the new engine! That is what all (and by all I mean totally all) games are lacking nowadays!!

Regards,

Thomm

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What it all boils down to is that we will be able to do more things better than we did before, and still have "plenty" of time to put in the stuff we either couldn't do or didn't think of at the time CMBO was developed.

So far so good. But one thing I can't figure out why do you guys refuse to do "trivial" stuff like command-line loading of PBEM turns? Heck, you could associate PBEM file type with CMBB and make the PBEM helper programmer's children go to bed hungry..

Another is the campaign layer.. This sort of thing probably does not need attention of Charles the Great? Just some add on stuff for the menu system, which is already separate from the game engine?