The reviewers were right, aka, this game is broken.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Panzer76... that screenshot is from Al Amarah. A great scenario! If you follow the advice written in the scenario lead-in: "play as blue only"

Martin

Hehe, egg on my face on that one. But Ive played other scenarios also were the attacking force does not do much, and if it does, its in dribs and draps as I said above. So my point still stands. </font>

[athkatla]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

Order 2 is after Setup, which is technically Order 1 (you have to click on Setup to access it).

Yes I did that, clicked on Setup and there was no Order 2 for either Red or Blue, in Ambush in Al Fubar, Ambush Tutorial, Factory Outlet and House Cleaning, just to name a few I checked.

[InvaderCanuck]

Jaguar, I made the correction as you suggested.

Big difference.

I ultimately won a Total victory, but I had quite a shock when the Bradley appeared behind my side of the objective, no more than 100 yards from my BMP.

It (Bradley) engaged an AT team that was spitting distance away in a house, while I turned my BMP and engaged it from its flank.

In the end the US Infantry assaulted my position and my poor ill equiped Syrian boys ran out of ammo. The US infantry took out my platoon HQ, but not before it took significant fire.

In the end I had to mop up the remainder of the US infantry with my BMP literally engaging at ranges inside 40 yards ;p

Fun little scenario all in all.

[securityguard]

There is an attacking AI? I did a couple of scenarios where you could defend but nothing ever happened. I also did that meeting engagement at dusk with the two smaller forces and I ended up killing the Syrians at their spawn.

[JaguarUSF]

Originally posted by athkatla:

in Ambush in Al Fubar, Ambush Tutorial, Factory Outlet and House Cleaning, just to name a few I checked.

Ohhhhhh...I thought you meant in Al Huqf.

Yeah, in some scenarios, there are no additional orders beyond setup because the troops are meant to hold position and defend...that is their objective.

[Moon]

Panzer76, after playing a "blue-only" scenario from the wrong side and citing that as an example, you are now using Meeting Engagement QuickBattles as examples for less than stellar AI performance?

I didn't want to ride on it, but I think that I can now official demand that you alter your thread title to say and add "...and I have egg on my face." Thank you.

Actually make that your sig. And link to this thread, too.

On a more serious note: the new AI planning tools mean that more responsibility rests on the shoulders of the scenario author. He has to not only come up with a good story, interesting unit mix and great map, but also basically lay out at least one (and if he's ambitious more than one) AI plan. The latter can have a big impact, positively and negatively, and takes time and experience to do well.

This isn't to say that the non-programmable part of the AI is all perfect. It's not. I would think that the AI is one of the areas where most work will go into in the future feature patches, after thousands of people get to play and identify what needs to be done. CMSF is a complex game simulating one of the most complex and chaotic (and extreme) events humans can do. I took years for CM1-3 to do a credible thing and I am sure many people here would immediately be able to cite a whole list of possible improvements.

What does this all mean? If you ask me, we might see fewer "fast food" scenarios for CMSF than for CM1-3 which were nothing else but randomly generated maps with a few quick-purchased units. Instead, those that we will see will be much better overall. We will see MUCH more complex real-life scenarios. CMSF isn't WW2 anymore, where unit X has to occupy hill Z. CMSF offers much more than that.

But it will be a learning process for scenario designers, just as it was and still is for the internal group who made the campaign and standalone scenarios. And to be honest, they didn't have a whole lot of time for what they did, and they did in an excellent way.

Martin

[JaguarUSF]

Originally posted by securityguard:

There is an attacking AI?

I played the first scenario (which I did and I can't remember the name of it ) as Red (who defends...and has some nice IEDs at their disposal) and I saw the Blue forces moving quite nicely.

The included scenarios, in my opinion, just scratch the surface of what is possible with the scenario editor. I expect some awesome community-made content shortly.

[ July 28, 2007, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: JaguarUSF ]

[athkatla]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

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

in Ambush in Al Fubar, Ambush Tutorial, Factory Outlet and House Cleaning, just to name a few I checked.

Ohhhhhh...I thought you meant in Al Huqf.

Yeah, in some scenarios, there are no additional orders beyond setup because the troops are meant to hold position and defend...that is their objective. </font>

[securityguard]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

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

There is an attacking AI?

I played the first scenario (which I did and I can't remember the name of it ) as Red (who defends...and has some nice IEDs at their disposal) and I saw the Blue forces moving quite nicely.

The included scenarios, in my opinion, just scratch the surface of what is possible with the scenario editor. I expect some awesome community-made content shortly. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Moon:

Panzer76, after playing a "blue-only" scenario from the wrong side and citing that as an example, you are now using Meeting Engagement QuickBattles as examples for less than stellar AI performance?

I didn't want to ride on it, but I think that I can now official demand that you alter your thread title to say and add "...and I have egg on my face." Thank you.

Im sorry, are you saying that ME battles are not a playable single player feature of CMSF?

Yes, my bad that I cited that other battle as an example, but it does not mean that the TacAI is strong. Its outright weak. Or, atleast in my eyes it is.

Its reassuring that you say that it will be one of the focus areas for the future.

[InvaderCanuck]

What Moon is saying is.

1) You played a scenario, ignoring the (Blue Only) which means that the scenario designed did not provide AI for the Blue side.

2) Meeting engagements are notoriously difficult to "do" right for the AI. A couple reasons off the top of my head. You can rush to the objective and change it from a meeting engagement into an AI assault. Normally defend/attack maps have handicaps for the attacker.

I'd like to add that the AI was terrible in ME's in all of the CMx1 games as well ;p

[Childress]

Just tried a Tiny quick battle and.... I chose the Syrians, with an Infantry force.

1- The first battle I got an abundance of platoons, IIRC, 3 or 4 plus support units. Problem is, our setup was apparently the same as the Americans. No indication of their setup area. We were wiped out, in less than a minute: fish in a barrel.

2- The second battle, identical parameters. I got

three (3) MG units and a HQ. Again, we awoke to the Americans in our midst. It wasn't pretty.

And, I'm sure it's been mentioned, we can't select the map of our choice? Happiness is diminishing.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

I'd like to add that the AI was terrible in ME's in all of the CMx1 games as well ;p

Oh, I thought I was playing a revolution (dev term) in terms of gameplay compared to CMx1. I didnt realize that meant keeping (or dumbing down it seems) the TacAi from CMx1.

[B00M$LANG]

Let me say one more thing about the map size. Bear with me because I'm simultaneously writing Tinjaw's letter of release!

The reason the military would need large map sizes is that one of the hardest things for new recruits to understand are things like bounding overwatch and properly maneuvering forces, using terrain, to get yourself into the best position possible to execute a successful mission.

I agree that, so far, the small maps have been sufficient, I was thinking more in long-term use and marketability. Steel Beasts is also a tactical sim, but look at their map sizes! There's a real good reason for this.

So, CM:SF is a "small-unit, engagement-only game". I like to look at the long-range possibilities.

BTW, if anyone has a job for an "okay" gamer who likes to shoot-off his mouth, Tinjaw will be available in two weeks.

[Chelco]

Boom$lang: are you Curt, the guy who designed "Raging Tiger" and so many others?

[B00M$LANG]

Chelco: Roger, over...

[YankeeDog]

@Boom$lang:

While I have not military experience myself, I think you have a very good point.

A military trainer would be more interested in simulating the minutes, or hours, of difficult maneuvering to contact, etc. that so often determine an actual engagement's outcome. Even a casual amateur military historian can see that many engagements are won long before the actual battle is really joined. Waterloo and Gettysburg are both great examples.

For the retail market, though, this part of a military operation is probably less interesting. Given this, it's not all that surprising that BFC concentrated on the "hot" hour or so of the actual firefight.

If the US or other major military power ever shows interest using the game as a simulation training tool, and actually ponies up money to to finance expansion and improvement of the engine, I'm sure BFC could expand map size consierably, among other things. You'd probably need a heck of a computer to run a 10km x 10km scenario, but I'm sure the Army can afford such hardware. And, anyway, given the rate of improvment in computer processing power we're seeing of late, in another year or two, a high-end consumer gaming rig will probably be able to.

I, for one, would love to be able to play a 6 hour long maneuver to contact, and then assault scenario. I'm probably in the minority here, though, at least among civilian players.

Cheers,

YD

[Bahger]

It's a great game so crippled by one thing that playing it is like trying to drive a Ferrari on its rims. That thing is vehicle pathfinding.

[thewood]

Small digression:

Gettysburg was touch and go despite Lee's strategic blunders. Battles did decide it, like Little Round Top for one.

[Becket]

Bahger, how many waypoints do you use in urban areas? For example, if you're approaching an intersection, and you want to reach a point down the road after turning left at the intersection, do you use two waypoints or one?

[Mr Byte]

I would think that the AI is one of the areas where most work will go into in the future feature patches, after thousands of people get to play and identify what needs to be done. CMSF is a complex game simulating one of the most complex and chaotic (and extreme) events humans can do.

I thought this was a wargame not a simulation of shopping with my wife....

[thewood]

Originally posted by Mr Byte:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would think that the AI is one of the areas where most work will go into in the future feature patches, after thousands of people get to play and identify what needs to be done. CMSF is a complex game simulating one of the most complex and chaotic (and extreme) events humans can do.

I thought this was a wargame not a simulation of shopping with my wife.... </font>

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by thewood:

Small digression:

Gettysburg was touch and go despite Lee's strategic blunders. Battles did decide it, like Little Round Top for one.

Well, this is a sidetrack, but briefly, I think that Chess is in many ways a very good parallel to real warfare. If you win the positional game, the match is yours to lose. But one f**k up on the pieces exchange, and you'll lose your advantage. And even if you have a handy advantage going into the endgame, with one big mistake you can still find yourself checkmated.

IMHO, At Gettysburg, Meade won the opening positional game handily. However, Meade made several tactical mistakes (such as not immediatly recognizing the tactical importance of Little Round Top, and placing troops there) that Lee as *almost* able to exploit, and regain the positional advantage. But Lee's luck ran out, he just wasn't able to exploit any of the tactical errors of the the Union forces to enough of an extent to change the tide.

Inspired action by the Union forces at several critical points, such as your example of Little Round Top, certainly also helped Meade carry the day.

So Lee was left with very few good options at the endgame, resulting the the now famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective), Pickett's Charge.

So yes, I do agree that inspired tactical action can overcome positional disadvantage. IMHO, This tends to be the exception to the rule, though.

Cheers,

YD

[thewood]

Go tell the Spartans

[YankeeDog]

That's a complex one. Spartans had local positional advantage, but were Operationally and Strategically at a massive positional disadvantage. And of course there's the numerical superiority issue. There's also the issue of what the "victory conditions" were for each side. Seems to me that a 300-main delaying force making an army of tens of thousands stop for even a half day, would be a massive strategic victory, even at the cost of total eradication of the delaying force. And that's before you get into the larger issues at play -- sacrifice of Spartans uniting the Greeks against the Persians, shaking resolve of Persians, etc.

As the Brits are so fond of proving, it is quite possible to lose the battle, but win the war.

Best left for a fuller discussion, another time.

Cheers,

YD