SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 So I've been playing CMBO and CMBB for a couple or three years now. I PBEM exclusively because I found that playing against the stategic AI leaves something to be desired. Now I don't fault the programmer. I'm a programmer myself and writing a good AI is bloody, bloody difficult thing. So here is my one big wish for the engine rewrite. Open up an API so other programmer types can have a go at impoving the Stategic AI. When chess playing computers first came on the scene they were pretty losey players. Over time they improved, partly because of the speed of computers and partly because of improved algorithms. Now they have reached the point where they are pretty much unbeatable. Now I don't expect anybody to write an AI engine for CMXX that will reach that level but they might be able to improve it over the existing AI. I think it would be realy neat if we could download AI mods along with tank or building mods. I would be nice to play on defense against the AI knowing that you just might get your ass kicked!! I think it might also be interesting to have an AI tournament. The other thing it might do is free up some developement cycles for the poor overworked BattleFront software developement team. (Charles) Anywho, I just thought I'd put in my two cents in for what I'd like too see in the engine rewrite. I'm sure it will get poo-pooed but hey if you don't ask... SuperSlug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 Oh, and why doesn't my name appear in the topic starter column? Please fix or do somefink!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Are you a ghost ? In RL, are you invisible ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 He doesn't know he's dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabla Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Hey, that's a pretty neat username. Try to hang on to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 I see dead people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 well he has no name but it is a reasonable suggestion None the less.... -tom w [ November 05, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Is it Clint Eastwood? He was The Man with No Name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Self-quote from http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002775 Originally posted by StellarRat: I still think that BFC should give us an API that lets you see what your units see and manuever/fire your units (all within the framework of the rules of course) that way anyone could try writing their own custom AI if they wanted. ----- To make this really work, they'd have to give you much more info about the program than they probably want to. Not that I wouldn't like an CM-OS (Open Source) version, but can you imagine BTS make a living from hotline support only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Who was that masked man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Florida voter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnuif Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 He whose name shall not be mentioned". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Peace Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Even if the original poster is anonymous, I think it is a great idea. I'd love to be able to tweak at least a few variables in the strategic or tac AI. I wish the editor would let us do such things. Warren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Originally posted by Lars: Florida voter?Real Name: Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 AI API programming is totally out of the question. That is, in no small way, a program assignment all on its own. We have neither the resources nor the time to do something like this. Our energy and time is better spent making the game better in other ways, including multi-multi-player.-BFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 AI API programming is totally out of the question. That is, in no small way, a program assignment all on its own. We have neither the resources nor the time to do something like this. Our energy and time is better spent making the game better in other ways, including multi-multi-player.-BFC Uh, where did you get this? Are they talking about the engine rewrite or CMBB? Some context if you please. Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. PBEM games take long enough as it is, I can't imagine send the file to two or more additional people. SuperSlug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Originally posted by : </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> AI API programming is totally out of the question. That is, in no small way, a program assignment all on its own. We have neither the resources nor the time to do something like this. Our energy and time is better spent making the game better in other ways, including multi-multi-player.-BFC Uh, where did you get this? Are they talking about the engine rewrite or CMBB? Some context if you please. Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. PBEM games take long enough as it is, I can't imagine send the file to two or more additional people. SuperSlug</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 ****** posted: Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. PBEM games take long enough as it is, I can't imagine send the file to two or more additional people. I can't imagine any feasible MMP implementation without a real time structure. Brace yourselves, men. Resistence will be fierce, traditionalists will rise up in arms, but the payoff could be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. You’re losing me here. CMBO has a better then decent AI and CMBB has improved upon that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 Originally posted by PeterX: ****** posted: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Quite frankly I'd rather see a decent AI then multi-multi player. PBEM games take long enough as it is, I can't imagine send the file to two or more additional people. I can't imagine any feasible MMP implementation without a real time structure. Brace yourselves, men. Resistence will be fierce, traditionalists will rise up in arms, but the payoff could be awesome.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 The problem with an API for an external AI: Obviously that AI needs access to the full unit and weapon database, in a form which the external developer's program can read. Thereby these databses get published in eletroct machien-reable form, a thing that most wargame developers try to prevent pretty hard. The same applies for the map format, the AI needs to read it. This kind of openness is pretty alien to most wargame developers as well. The external AI needs the extact rule for visibility and cover for all terrain tiles. etc etc etc Of course, every stupid Quake close does all this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 There is an old saying... ideas are a dime a dozen. For AI improvement, ideas are worth far less than that. We will make improvements, but user feedback will not help things at all. Not because we are arrogant, mind you. It is just not practical for Joe Anybody to help things get improved. This is not the case with other aspects of the game so feedback efforts should be directed away from AI and towards things where players have a chance of making a difference. From a previous thread on this subject. This is the very reason the AI needs an API. These things take time and many iterations to improve both of which BTS I'm sure have few to spare. But hey, if they say they won't do it (or even investigate doing it) then I guess I will give up and go back to reading CMBB sneak/exhaustion complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 You’re losing me here. CMBO has a better then decent AI and CMBB has improved upon that. Uh, are we playing the same game? Let the AI play attacker. Pathetic at best. I won't even talk about meeting engagements. It does OK on defense where it doesn't have to do much besides fire. Don't get me wrong CMXX is the best computer game I have ever played. (And I have played an awful lot!!) I just think allowing the stategic AI to be improved would make the game that much more remarkable. SuperSlug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSlug Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The problem with an API for an external AI: Obviously that AI needs access to the full unit and weapon database, in a form which the external developer's program can read. Thereby these databses get published in eletroct machien-reable form, a thing that most wargame developers try to prevent pretty hard. Its not that obvious to me. Much of this could be hidden with a properly implemented API. SuperSlug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted November 5, 2002 Share Posted November 5, 2002 ..then I guess I will give up and go back to reading CMBB sneak/exhaustion complaints. Good idea. Would you like some cheese with that? [ November 05, 2002, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts