dalem Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by C'Rogers: Dalem (or anyone else who wants to weigh in), Just a question to fill this information vacuum that we are in. Suppose for whatever reason 1) Random maps are impossible. 2) Point based forces are impossible. Is there some other direction/compromise to either of those two points that you would be happy with? I could probably live without random maps. I'd certainly be open to the game. And I don't really care about points per se. I just want to be able to pick specific vehicles and guns and teams to suport the platoons I pick, like in CM. Like when I used to dig through my ASL counter trays and think "Hmm... how long will the Pak38 and Schreck guys last against a platoon of T-34s?" I can handle "balance" myself. Don't get me wrong, I love going with random AI picks for both sides as well, those are probably 60% of my solo CM games, but I simply cannot imagine wanting to play a WWII tactical wargame without the ability to specifically pick a Chaffee or two and run a recon patrol into a village. Maybe other factors would mitigate the above, but right now I can't imagine them. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Well, I'm still shelved on CM... I think I have 1.03. CM WWII? I want to have the fun of CMBB/CMAK with the 3D graphics 'upgrade' of CM. As it sits CM is not a fun RTS game and is not a fun Wego game. It isn't learning curve, it isn't different, it's just wrong, a swing and a miss, so to speak. I prey CM2WWII will be fun... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 What dalem just said. (I, too, am a former ASLer. Being able to pick my forces and PLAY is what I'd like to see.) Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webwing Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: I just want to be able to pick specific vehicles and guns and teams to suport the platoons I pick, like in CM. Like when I used to dig through my ASL counter trays and think "Hmm... how long will the Pak38 and Schreck guys last against a platoon of T-34s?" -dale [/QB]Dale, I don't see how that would be a problem for them to implement. And they wouldn't even have to mess with the troop structure that they already have in place. They could just have in the QB window the same Units screen they have in the Editor. You activate the troops you like, give them all the attributes, fitness, etc. And off you go. It would be just as you said. Pick a platoon from one company and another squad from another company to support it. You can do exactly that in the editor, why not in QB? That's probably what they are doing. -- [ November 30, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Webwing, I think most of us recognize its doable. But when initially asked, Steve came up with a bunch of reasons for kind of "browbeating" us into thinking we were idiots and old farts for asking. I am paraphrasing obviously because most of us are old farts. Sorry to try to speak for you Dale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: Webwing, I think most of us recognize its doable. But when initially asked, Steve came up with a bunch of reasons for kind of "browbeating" us into thinking we were idiots and old farts for asking. I am paraphrasing obviously because most of us are old farts. Sorry to try to speak for you Dale. No, that is pretty much what I would have said. The C&C prevents it, and Steve doesn't want to do it, points-based, anyway. There are ways to avoid the points, but I'm not qualified to say whether there are ways to get around the C&C thing, since I don't understand how it works. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 The thing about QBs, points, and why there can't be points ... The engine already picks units in QBs. It must use some kind of criteria to determine what "qualifies" as small/large/etc. for the battles. I don't know if there is any kind of buy system, or if they just choose from a list of acceptable options. But it seems all that needs to be done is open that up to the player. Unless of course it was not even remotely coded that way or what have you. But it must be doing something when it chooses. Just replace the it with the player. That might not get the full extent of options desired from the WWII game, but an improvement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by Paper Tiger: quote: "1) only as crap as the programming; there's no evidence that it need be crap." Have you any idea how long that would take to programme? [...] quote: "2) that's part of the point - having to hand-develop an AI plan in some detail is undesirable - but certainly a map generator could also develop an AI plan if that's what it takes." undesirable for you maybe but not for a lot of us. [...] quote "3) true, I only have the demo. Having said that, between studying the demo and reading here, it's [...] Would you care to qualify your statement that a lot of them don't? Which ones? And if some well designed scenarios do work as you admit, then your point is invalid. [...] I don't think you want to be corrected at all. In order: 1) Yes. I'm a former programmer and now run a team of programmers. 2)re: me vs "a lot of us", so what? The writeup says "what follows is my opinion". You're welcome to disagree and buy the game. 3) the point is valid without an exhaustive list of scenarios - at least enough for statistical validity - noting up- or down-checks. If only "some" well-designed scenarios appear to have a cleanly-working strat AI... then the rest (including QB's) are still broken, which tends to validate the hypothesis that this game isn't properly CM (QB's again), which is what we (I) wanted. 4)I enjoy correction, because I learn from it. I may change some language around the strat AI issues as a result of discussion here. Having said that, I asked for facts, and you haven't provided any. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by Adam1: This is almost becoming a game in itself. So first it everything was hunky-dory we just "didn't get it". Then if you still have issues with the game, that's written off as subjective opinion. Then silence. More of a strategy game than a tactical one, but yep, it's a game. It's also a learning experience - there are lots of serving armed forces members here, and other people with force occupations, so I pick some useful stuff up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by Adam1: A huge step forward from CM's original AI it is. But it needs a lot more player control to work. [...] I'm curious what Aaron thinks about the "AI" in Steel Beasts, which has a lot of scripting tools but won't do anything unless you write the doctrine for each scenario. [...] And what is an example of a good wargame AI? Regarding player control, the pivot is the QB issue. As long as significant designer (player) intervention is required, QB's are going to be broken, which essentially makes it "flawed beyond patching" if we define the lack of reasonably-good QB's in the CM mold to be a flaw (which I do). I haven't played Steel Beasts in a long time - can't comment. "back in the day" I found the AI to be competent. If you mean living example, instead of a list of criteria, it's hard to think of a really good one. Most AI's can be baited in some way because of the simplicity of the rulesets (eg, tease the AI with something to draw out and destroy its air power). Give a strat AI a set of simple goals - defend and area, take an area, destroy enemy units, etc - and watch a somewhat realistic and flexible response - that would be a good strat AI, and one which requires little if any intervention. In the demo, note that you can drive your mech forces on top of the left-hand raised area, wait a while, and shoot fish in a barrel in a target-rich environment. I attribute this to some kind of trigger that was avoided by not going up the middle, and note that taking forces up the middle prompts more action from the opfor AI. So that's a bad AI, because I can (easily) avoid the trigger action and do something completely infeasible in real life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by Adam1: And Steve is amazingly consistent in his ravings, right dalem? Considering the amount of information he has tucked away, and the crap he puts up with here, he's pretty good. If he sounds irritable some times... compare him to some other mods :eek: I think BF has just made some poor decisions (eg., getting in bed with Paradox, dumping WEGO with all of the fallout implications) and is now struggling with the results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Originally posted by Webwing: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Webwing: What I believe is that this engine is so fundamentally different that it will never generate QBs the way people have come to expect from the CMx1 series. There is a lot more abstraction in CMx1. Much bigger forces, bigger maps, simpler terrain, no enterable buildings, etc. You don't have to autogenerate maps, but there's nothing in a combat engine that prevents you from selecting your own forces (other than BFC's ego) and pick one of thousands of premade maps with some sensible setup zones. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 In summary, looking forward to trying the 1.05 demo (if released...), but not with high hopes - I'm starting to consider this edition of CM to be CM:BP, "Combat Mission:Beyond Patching", because of the issues listed in my writeup (way back on page one of this discussion). If you're OK with RT, most of the issues can be patched. If you aren't, I don't think they can be. I note that the most vigourous and vituperative discussion has come from one line-item in the writeup, regarding the strat AI. I'll have a harder look at it, but if that's the only thing that isn't solid, the writeup as a whole must be sound and the hypothesis well-demonstrated. The second biggest area would be QB's. Lot's of people don't care about that - but without QB's, we don't have CM, and that's "beyond patching" and in concert with the writeup. [ December 01, 2007, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: acrashb ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunyip Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Why is there still only one brain in the jar? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 acrashb I'd like to publically apologise to you for coming down a bit hard on your post. I was rude. I have hit a bit of a rough patch in the real world and the negativity here gets me down and makes me feel a bit defensive. No excuse though for being publically rude. Actually I do agree with a lot your post but I feel a bit protective of the scenario editor as I think it is a superb improvement over the CM1 model. I hope there's no hard feelings. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Accepted, and may I say that your post just now was gentlemanly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 A different way of saying the same thing just occurred to me. The LOS/LOF problem isn't so much a result of Unit A not being able to see Unit B in some sort of fashion, as much as it is a result of Unit A not being able to see itself in any way whatsoever. Does that make as much sense to you guys as it does to me, or have I had one too many rum & Cokes already tonight? -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No you're fine...in fact have another...But Unit A has had enough...Get their keys and call 'em a cab... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Too many rum and cokes. Try switching to rye and gingerale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Nahh, still makes as much sense to me now, stone cold, as it did after dinner. If Unit A could see bits of itself getting gunned down at "that corner" then it would be able to react properly. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I think what you are trying to say is that the infantry in CMSF is as dumb as a bag of hammers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 "Sergeant! Every time one of our squad goes around that corner I hear a gunshot and then the soldier doesn't reply to anything I say!! What should I do??" "Hmm, why don't you go around that corner and find out what's going on?" "Yes, Sergeant!" Bang! Repeat as needed. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Originally posted by dalem: If Unit A could see bits of itself getting gunned down at "that corner" then it would be able to react properly. -dale OK, that made sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Originally posted by acrashb: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem: If Unit A could see bits of itself getting gunned down at "that corner" then it would be able to react properly. -dale OK, that made sense. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.