Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Opening up the Stategic AI

SuperSlug
 Share

Recommended Posts

Priest Senior Member

Priest

Posted
Posted

Sorry folks not going to happen. As BFC has stated numerous times, things such as the AI and the points system will be static so that everyone is playing the same game.

This is not Madden 2003 or NeverWinter Nights, this is a game striving to be an accurate simulation of tactical WWII engagements.

What you are asking for would cause more confusion ans a heck of a lot more of a headache than BFC is willing to endure (and I do not want to endure the endless innane threads it would produce smile.gif )

So I would not really worry about it, because just like Julia Roberts is not going to show up on your doorstep, you are not going to be able to modify the AI in CM games. And after all the research and experience the BFC folks have, why would you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSlug Member

SuperSlug

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is not Madden 2003 or NeverWinter Nights, this is a game striving to be an accurate simulation of tactical WWII engagements.

Hmmm I'm having are hard time understanding how historical accuracy is being served by the Stategic AI in it's current form? Remeber I'm not talking about the TAC AI here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redwolf Senior Member

Redwolf

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by Priest:

Sorry folks not going to happen. As BFC has stated numerous times, things such as the AI and the points system will be static so that everyone is playing the same game.

This was about the TacAI, not the programmed opponent aka Strategic AI.

Putting the TacAI into a user-loadable DLL would break Fog of War once and forever.

So I would not really worry about it, because just like Julia Roberts is not going to show up on your doorstep, you are not going to be able to modify the AI in CM games. And after all the research and experience the BFC folks have, why would you?

This is a joke question, is it?

There can be no question that, all business secret and work requirement issues on BFC's part aside for a moment, this group can of course come up with a pretty good programmed opponent, or several of those to be precise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSlug Member

SuperSlug

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Does this mean Julia Roberts is not coming then?
Some more useful input... I thank you for that. :mad: I guess I'm not supposed to feed the

Trolls... oh well.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. To make things absolutely clear. This thread is to discuss opening of the stategic AI API. Not the TAC AI.

I'm not so foolish to think that if would be a trivial exercise. I first raised this topic before CMBB but let it die because I realised they were dealing with a pile of legacy code that probably was not ameanable to this sort of thing.

However, if they are doing an engine rewrite I was hoping that they my do so with an eye towards an external interface.

SuperSlug

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redwolf Senior Member

Redwolf

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by :

I'm not so foolish to think that if would be a trivial exercise. I first raised this topic before CMBB but let it die because I realised they were dealing with a pile of legacy code that probably was not ameanable to this sort of thing.

However, if they are doing an engine rewrite I was hoping that they my do so with an eye towards an external interface.

You didn't read anything of the stuff about the secret weapon and unit datases and the exact documentation for cover, concealment and movement speed for terrain tiles that BFC would have to open and never will, did you?

The only thing that can change that is some wargame developer comes along and wants to make money out of a framework, not a specific game. Id software was pretty successful with that, but that was for a different game genre. And they can sell a new engine every few years because people want to stay on top of graphics hardware. I don't think that will work for CM, much less for TacOps.

[ November 05, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperSlug Member

SuperSlug

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You didn't read anything of the stuff about the secret weapon and unit datases and the exact documentation for cover, concealment and movement speed for terrain tiles that BFC would have to open and never will, did you?
I did I did!! I'm not convinced that this level of detail needs to be exposed, is all. I'm not going to go into writing a bunch of pseudo code to prove my point. I just think maybe BTS could take a step back (up?) and see if maybe they could write some wrappers that don't expose the hard won data yet still provide an API.

<small>[ November 05, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fly Pusher Senior Member

Fly Pusher

Posted
Posted

I realise that BBS need to earn their crust and would be unwilling to give access to the databases, but how about an old product unlikely to generate much additional revenue ? Why not make CMBO opensource ?

Then the prog-grogs can hack away at the AI's on CMBO and maybe contribute something useful to future versions of the game. In the meantime the rest of us can play CMBB.

It didnt hurt Linux

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abbott Senior Member

Abbott

Posted
Posted

Hey Slugo, You posted your idea, people (including myself) posted thoughtfully. A link was posted which you did not bother to read until I pointed you to the second page… was that trolling?

You then started whining about how bad the AI was and asked, “Uh, are we playing the same game?” Then you posted “Ok, I give up whine”. I thought that was the end of the discussion, excuse me for believing you.

My post about Julia (god bless her gams) is called HUMOR, not TROLLING. I believe you are taking this thing a bit too personal

[ November 05, 2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zarquon Senior Member

Zarquon

Posted
Posted

Pooooooh.

Let's try an example : you want to write a function for better AI placement of AT guns. You would definitely need access to

- all map data

- AT gun data, so you can place the more powerful guns farther to the back

- concealment calculation functions, including weather modifiers

- a list of things that are hardcoded elsewhere to know what you can influence and what not

- ballistic calculation functions, so you could avoid to place the gun too far behind your lines

- and lots of other things I forgot

Of course, you would expect BTS to give a little support to AI modders. Without that, you wouldn't go anywhere. How do you compensate BTS for that?

What's left secret of the work BTS has done? Graphics, mostly. Graphics engines are a dime a dozen. Same goes for graphic designers (sorry).

Six months later, we might see the first, flashy, bug-ridden, watred-down installment of Micro$oft Battle Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin. Add a million dollar marketing campaign and BTS can close down this website and open up the Big Time Software Pizza Parlor, historically accurate food and prompt service guaranteed.

Open source CM:

Lots of people would ask themselves "Why buy the game for $49 when i can download basically the same (or even better) game for free?" and BTS would be out of business.

Even if not out of business, it would seriously hurt their sales, the same as pirated copies do now.

Linux got off the ground after years of low-level development when the number of participants reached critical mass - thousands. Not very likely to happen with WWII wargaming. However, there always was and is a large core of reliable, determined hackers that supervised and coordinated the different projects. Remember, the appeal of an open, stable and free OS is a little higher than wargaming.

Anyway, we'd see lots of people with a little time on their hands and a little programming experience trying to improve the game. Most would give up after investing a few dozen hours trying to come up with an algorith to improve AT gun placement. BTW, even if you finished it, how can you tell that your algorith is *different* from the current AI? I'd like to know before I started. Doesn't that mean that BTS would have to tell you the details about the current AI functions if they offered an API?

Adding and supporting an open API to the engine rewrite would add thousands of hours (and bugs...) to the task. I don't want to wait until 2010 for CMII. I don't. I really don't. I don't want to download and install a bug-ridden, half finished, user contributed minefield function that is even worse than the official one.

Just my 00000010 cents.

Jörg

P.S. : it's been said before : what we really need is the possibility to add scripting to scenarios. It would not help QB gaming vs. the Artificial Incompetence, but imagine pre-made scenarios where the designer could mark different paths for an AI attacker, set movement modes (cautious, overwatch yes/no, sneak, rush...), designate reserves and their trigger conditions etc.). Even simple scripting options would vastly improve solo gaming.

If anyone is interested, please open a new thread.

[ November 05, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redwolf Senior Member

Redwolf

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by :

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You didn't read anything of the stuff about the secret weapon and unit datases and the exact documentation for cover, concealment and movement speed for terrain tiles that BFC would have to open and never will, did you?

I did I did!! I'm not convinced that this level of detail needs to be exposed, is all. I'm not going to go into writing a bunch of pseudo code to prove my point. I just think maybe BTS could take a step back (up?) and see if maybe they could write some wrappers that don't expose the hard won data yet still provide an API.</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSuperSlug Junior Member

TheSuperSlug

Posted
Posted
posted November 05, 2002 03:06 PM

Pooooooh.

Let's try an example : you want to write a function for better AI placement of AT guns. You would definitely need access to

- all map data

- AT gun data, so you can place the more powerful guns farther to the back

- concealment calculation functions, including weather modifiers

- a list of things that are hardcoded elsewhere to know what you can influence and what not

- ballistic calculation functions, so you could avoid to place the gun too far behind your lines

- and lots of other things I forgot

Of course you would need the map data and concealment information.

AT Gun data. But no more then is availble to the

player now. Range/Armour penetration.

Concealment could be derived from the map data.

Hard coded items? This is speculation...

Ballistic calculation functions??? Does the player have these? I don't think so.

Lots of other things? Once again speculation.

Personally I have used dozens of APIs with little or no support. There would be bug fixes but BTS releases patches anyway.

I don't see how providing Strategic AI API leads to a Microsoft version of CM. Nor do I think it would take 10 years to do.

However, I do agree with your comments pertaining to open source. I think it would be a bad idea for BTS to go this route.

(The) SuperSlug

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Priest Senior Member

Priest

Posted
Posted

Here is a reproduction of this arguement using a different subject.

Person 1: They sky needs to be red.

Person 2: But it is Blue and it is going to stay Blue for the forseeable future.

Person 1: But I want it to be Red, it should be Red because Blue is flawed.

Person 2: How is Blue flawed, I mean it is a nice color, nothing inherently wrong with it. Plus you cannot change it so why bother.

Person 1: Because I want it Red.

Person 2: You cannot have it Red it is Blue, it is reality, it is the way it is. It is fact.

Person: But I want Red.

The arguement above is the exact same thing we are seeing here taken a bit to the extreme. BFC has already levied a decision on this, personally I agree with them but to each there own. So how about those Bren Tripods and SturmTigers. (oh and Julia!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aka_tom_w Senior Member

aka_tom_w

Posted
Posted
Originally posted by TheSuperSlug:

I guess I have to agree, Sturm Tigers add a whole new dimension to the game. :rolleyes:

Ah well, my one and only request for this game that I love will likely never appear. Thank god for PBEM opponents...

Say Costello care to put your money where your mouth is?

this "Costello" guy you refer to???? :confused:

is that Abbott??

If you think you can take him in CMBB I would bet you are mistaken.

I have played him and he is a VERY GOOD tactician!

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...