New Operations and the new AI

[Maj Soshtokovich]

Hi,

Here is a second go at this topic.

PROBLEM 1 : The AI is poor

PROBLEM 2 : Operations are poor

I know both as I not only played the game but opened the editor too .

1) There has never been an "integrated AT/ AFV defence" in any operation ( & probably battle) by the AI. Period.

Given that the AI probably has much better knowledge of LOS path's why can't it figure it out?

PLEASE can the AI grab a brain next time round.

2) This mainly concerns perimiters. 100% of the CG in an operation is dependent on the new perimiter.

If there is only one available model ( namely a straight line) then that HAS TO BE a failure- right?

In BB ( if we want to play with any accuracy at all) encirclements have to be possible. I explained in another post that this would probably be a program that a human would use to draw the perimiter by enclosing ( like Red Barricades in ASL) his areas of control.

Due to the complex nature of such an undertaking ( probably unreasonable) the second bet is to use commom and easy geometric shaped ( ex: square, circle) that would be " templates" the the human would use to mark the map. This perimiter program would be an overlay ( maybe Java for example) that the AI could also understand. After the perimiter is drawn such things as no - man's land would work as per normal.

An analogy would be to put your spread fingers into a cake ( representing a German concentration of force) and representing that in a true(ish) fashion.

As I have designed quite a few CG's I cannot stress enough the " total wreakage" that exists from the existing " mothod??".

Your comments are WELCOME.........

[Slater]

It sounds like you know what your talking about if u can program why dont u try it yourself or get in touch with the devlopers to see if you can put your input in the next patch anyway the idea sounds great but weather its possible is not for me to say.

[BulletRat]

A "smart" or "thinking" AI does not exist. If it did we'd all be slaves making robots for our machine masters.

Seriously though, I'm sure an AI could be coded to kick your arse every time (someone did it for Total Annihilation), but to do so it would have to "cheat".

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich:

In BB ( if we want to play with any accuracy at all) encirclements have to be possible. I explained in another post that this would probably be a program that a human would use to draw the perimiter by enclosing ( like Red Barricades in ASL) his areas of control

Never played ASL, so I may lack the frame of reference here. Having said that - AIUI encirclements are operational. CMBB operations are tactical. Therefore I don't quite follow the argument that in order to play 'accurately' encirclements have to be simulated. I don't actually think they can be simulated, except as a series of tactical engagements for crucial ground, which can be done in an operation.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Never played ASL, so I may lack the frame of reference here. Having said that - AIUI encirclements are operational. CMBB operations are tactical. Therefore I don't quite follow the argument that in order to play 'accurately' encirclements have to be simulated. I don't actually think they can be simulated, except as a series of tactical engagements for crucial ground, which can be done in an operation.

I disagree.

Encirclements come in all sizes. Lets take Stalingrad as an example. More specifically the "to the Volga" operation. In real life there were dozens of pockets in that area in that operation. And in real life, creating such pockets were the only way to drive the Russians out of some points of resistance. These pockets could be as small as the top level of a building, or as large as a factory hall.

In ASL, this was simulated, where you could have pockets as small as the top floor of a building. This is lacking in BB, and it is a shortcoming.

If you feel Stalingrad is a bad example of these "mini-encirclements" I can name hundreds of other such pockets, both from city battles, but also from other battles, which would fit in very well on the BB scale.

[xerxes]

In assault and static operations, pockets such as you describe, can be formed. Bypass some units and cut them off, voila, a mini-pocket. Pockets DON'T/CAN'T occur in advance operations.

[Terrapin]

Hey, why don't you put together some code for this kind of geometric overlay and post it here for some of us and BTS to take a look, eh?

We'll expect it in a week.

Is that alright? With your obvious skill at AI programming, it shouldn't be a problem, correct?

BTW, that "cake" analogy ain't working too well, get another one.

[ December 22, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Terrapin ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

here is one way you might be able to simulate permiters in cmbb. for starters, it looks as though, between 1.0 and 1.01 the ai may be now keeping its units for the most part in default positions. this may have to do with whether the human player has taken a flag. for whatever reason though, it seems like the troops stay 'closer to home' on the ai defense than they once did.

all of that aside, what you might be able to do is:

1) design a scenario or operation with flags forming a perimeter. set up pockets of ai-controlled units around each flag.

2) put in landmarks (ctrl-click) in the editor which spell out the objectives to the human player.

3) when the scenario or operation is done being designed, release it but tell the people playing it that beforehand they need to make sure that victory flags are off. this way the victory flags won't be visible to give away the positions of the defending ai.

to make sure that flags are off, the player might have to go into a game - any game - and turn flags off. once it is certain that flags are not visible (off), then the player can load your scenario or operation and play, and attack toward the landmarks you've given them.

this way the ai is in a perimeter, but it isn't obvious to the human player; instead the human player attacks toward landmarks given by the designer, and not flags.

[mcgivney]

Originally posted by Slater_SS:

It sounds like you know what your talking about if u can program why dont u try it yourself or get in touch with the devlopers to see if you can put your input in the next patch anyway the idea sounds great but weather its possible is not for me to say.

Am I the only one who can never take a poster with [sS] in his user name seriously?

Back on topic; I don't have my copy of CM:BB yet (c'mon Santa!) but the linear nature of operations in CMBO always irked me. Bypassed & surrounded units should have to be dealt with & dug out.

[Maj Soshtokovich]

Terapin,

What is your problem. I have quite a few computer friends. If Steve will send it to me I'll see what I can do ok.

Thanks for your constructive reply mate ! :mad:

[Terrapin]

My problem is that in every forum for EVERY game, particularly complex ones, there is someone who thinks they know how to make a better game, or whose fool-proof ideas just have to be taken seriously by the devs.

And then they post about it. Again. And again. And again.

In the Morrowind forums it's people who think they know how to get the NPCs to sound less generic, and people who think they know how to add horses to the game (and who think the game is ruined without them).

In OFP forums, it's people who have GREAT ideas on how the user could give commands to make the squadmates use flanking maneuvers (sound familiar?).

Maybe I'm being a little hard on you, but I've seen this too often to not say it. Either way, I'll quit doing it. And, by all means, if you or "your friends" have the skilz, let us see them, and we'll toast you to the end of time.