RT and how it has hurt WEGO and single player/AI. (not anti-RT)

[SmithyG]

(not against RT mode but i've noticed how it effected other things negatively)

As we've all noticed a lot of features we were accustomed to have dissapeared in large part thanks to RT mode. It now makes sense that the Devs and testers preferred RT mode. There's just too many things you can no longer do in WEGO mode with any efficiency. Either due to poor reactions ( or no reaction at all) by the AI or lacking commands for the WEGO commander.

In CMX1 the AI was capable of making a lot more decisions on its own while in CMSF it makes almost none. I can only assume this is caused by the players ability to make those decisions in real time for them. Unfortunately this doesnt help us WEGO commanders.

All of this also hurts the game in probably the most important place, single player. Even in RT mode the AI has no one to make micromanaging decisions for it. In CMX1 a halftrack would quickly retreat from a tank, but in CMSF a Stryker in the hands of WEGO commanders or AI is often doomed to sit still and die (doesnt help that they often engage tanks with their 50cal). The only time this isnt blatantly obvious is when a human is in control using RT mode... he can tell it to reverse, hold fire and pop smoke... but can he enjoy a game where the enemy(AI) cant or doesnt? I doubt it.

Fix it please!

[Jamm0r]

Agreed, and well said. It is indeed obvious now why the developers/testers all prefer RT -- WEGO is pretty much broken. Not that I personally miss it much, I'm having a blast in RT (albeit broken pathfinding and several other minor quirks are starting to rub the wrong way...)

[thewood]

I wouldn't say it was broken, but I do think some sacrifices were made in WEGO to make the scenario editor more powerful and scripted like in RT games.

I think a lot of smaller issues that people are having are related to the AI not having the individual intelligence as in CM. It is much more dependent on scenario design and the player sitting right on top of them.

Unfortunately I think the interface is a little clunky for RT. Too many keystrokes and clicks.

[Cheeba]

Originally posted by thewood:

I think a lot of smaller issues that people are having are related to the AI not having the individual intelligence as in CM. It is much more dependent on scenario design and the player sitting right on top of them.

Unfortunately I think the interface is a little clunky for RT. Too many keystrokes and clicks.

The problem with the AI seems to be that effectively there seems to be very little of it. Scripting is not something I'd call true AI at all, and it's obvious from QB's and the like that the unit AI can't think on its feet at even a basic level. Good scripting should help to provide more realistic tactics, but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all.

Wholly in agreement about the interface too. If they really want it to be an RT game, the interface simply has to be more streamlined. RTS interface design is down to a fine art these days, and your average Joe public rts gamer wouldn't stand for what's included here. Thankfully that's a moot point for me, being an exclusively turn-based strategy fan, but then the tacAI issues start to get really troublesome again.

And obviously the devs and testers are going to prefer RT if they never bothered testing and developing WEGO to a properly functional level. And it's obvious from even a cursory playthrough that absolutely essential turn-based functionality is missing. I don't even mean the extra luxuries like shoot n' scoot or hull down commands, I'd even be relatively content with properly editable waypoints and (this is the biggie here) truly stackable orders.

Stacking waypoints is fine, but what about providing functionality where for example an MG team can move to waypoint, move to next waypoint, deploy weapon and then change facing (Instead of changing facing and THEN moving, regardless of the order commands were given in)?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by SmithyG:

In CMX1 the AI was capable of making a lot more decisions on its own while in CMSF it makes almost none. I can only assume this is caused by the players ability to make those decisions in real time for them. Unfortunately this doesnt help us WEGO commanders.

What makes you think there is no TacAI in CM:SF, though?

[Grumbling Grognard]

This game has no WEGO <period>

This game uses pausable-realtime. The game is just designed to pause for you and allow you to replay the action (a VERY nice feature btw).

But, regardless of what BF whats to call it the rest of the world does 'not' call this type of game WEGO because the action is 'not' resolved in between turns it is all done DURING the turn.

All of the processing advantages of WEGO (i.e. the processor could spend 99% of its power doing AI calcs, etc...then process the graphics) is lost as far as I can see. This could also be why while the game 'does' have nicer graphics than CMx1 it is still a HOG on a PC.

[SmithyG]

I'm largely playing in RT mode now as well, but not because I prefer it. Hopefully the Devs can chime in and reassure us that this isnt a direction CMSF has purposely taken.

At this point i'm not really sure if we should expect a lot of the issues relating to WEGO commands, TacAI and enemy AI to be addressed... or if they're actually design decisions leaning towards a MP RT focused game. Can we get some feedback please?

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What makes you think there is no TacAI in CM:SF, though?

My experience playing the game tells me there is almost none, that I can see at least. My halftrack and Stryker example covers this. Plenty of other example on the forum as well.

[Kineas]

RT would not kill wego in itself. But this game is just one game not two. True wego wargame would require different UI, different commands, probably different tacai. We can't blame the developers that they didn't make two games at the same time. They didn't even have the resources to test it properly.

[ July 29, 2007, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Kineas ]

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by Kineas:

They didn't even have the resources to test the it properly.

LOL! Good Lord!

I 'wish' that in one, just ONE project I have worked on in the last 15 years in corporate software dev. we had 1/10th of the DEDICATED people to test the software we rollout that BF has at its fingertips...FOR FREE! LOL!

[SmithyG]

GG, untill you mentioned the processing phase I was going to completely disagree with you. You're right tho... In CMX1 the game would have a 3 phases before the visuals would start. The player, AI planning and calculating phase. While the hit calculations are now done in real time there doesnt seems to be a planning phase for the AI. I still think its WEGO, but i guess we can jokingly call it IGO in single player.

Originally posted by Kineas:

RT would not kill wego in itself. But this game is just one game not two. True wego wargame would require different UI, different commands, probably different tacai. We can't blame the developers that they didn't make two games at the same time. They didn't even have the resources to test the it properly.

No ones blaming anyone. We're just dissapointed and want things we expected to be ingame fixed or added. That or be told that this isnt the direction CMSF is taking. I'd like to know that to expect from future patches. Some sort of Combat Mission mission statement, heh.

[Kineas]

Originally posted by SmithyG:

No ones blaming anyone. We're just dissapointed and want things we expected to be ingame fixed or added. That or be told that this isnt the direction CMSF is taking. I'd like to know that to expect from future patches. Some sort of Combat Mission mission statement, heh.

I'm not disappointed now, I was in the last few months when it became evident from the dev's comment where CMSF is heading to. If you read the forums carefully I think you can extract the statement for yourself. RT and the new gaming experience is the way to go. Maybe we can expect some fixes for wego, but they won't write another game (see my reasoning above) you can be sure about that.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by SmithyG:

In CMX1 the AI was capable of making a lot more decisions on its own while in CMSF it makes almost none. I can only assume this is caused by the players ability to make those decisions in real time for them. Unfortunately this doesnt help us WEGO commanders.

It hurts RT commanders like me as well, since I now have to babysit all the units.

[SmithyG]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Maybe we can expect some fixes for wego, but they won't write another game (see my reasoning above) you can be sure about that.

I'm not asking for or expect any huge changes. Most of the problems effect WEGO almost as much as they do RT. Like Money pointed out you have to spend more time babysitting units, which is a problem on larger scenarios (especially with relative spotting taken into account).

The TacAI isnt a WEGO only issues. Its determines how much time you'll have to spend babysitting units and how challenging the AI is in single player. The single player issue is the biggest for me.

As far as WEGO goes i just want to see a couple commands changed (hunt continuing) and made stackable. I dont think thats asking for a whole new game.

[Darkmath]

I agree with SmithyG ; scripting the AI is a new feature in CMX2 but now AI cannot do decisions on its own.

Indeed, it's not WEGO anymore, it's pausable real time.

In the demo, that RT mode seem broken as AI give orders for 30 seconds then wait the rest of the turn to give new orders!

And some missing compound orders from CMX1 such as shoot and scout shows that commands in CMX2 were designed for RT.

TacAI hurts both RT and WEGO, but user interface does it too.

It is always more clumsy than the side scroll menu in CMX1.I don't think the number of commands is a problem to put it in CMX2. Each unit doesn't have all commands available.

Anyway, TACAI issues are likely to be resolved in next patches (high priority on the fix list), but we have to wait more months to enjoy a single player WEGO battle.

Please, devs, make the AI more independant from scripting. Scripting hurts replayability, IMHO.

But I suspect featuring a more dynamic AI would need a big engine rewrite, so...

But just keep whining to get a better game.

[Lee]

Wow, I'm shocked to hear this. The Tac AI is now actually inferior to the CMI games?? Like in the example above, an APC or such now won't automatically back up and try get out of LOS if it spots an enemy tank? This sort of good Tac AI reaction is absolutely standard in the CM games, and now all of a sudden it's gone in CMII? Why??

And as it has been pointed out, this greatly hurts not only WEGO combat resolution, but also RT combat. Because now you have to worry if you leave a light armor unit for even a few seconds while you're busy elsewhere on the battlefield that it's going to be too dumb to even reverse direction and get out of the line of fire of enemy tanks that it spots. This makes no sense, why make the Tac AI dumber than in the previous CM games?? Everyone was expecting the Tac AI to be at least as good in CMII as in the CMI games, but from what you guys are saying it's nowhere near as good.

I'm waiting for my pre-order to arrive, and I was all excited to play, and then I hear this. That the Tac AI ability that we know and love from the previous CM games is now suddenly not working, which is going to seriously damage even RT combat and almost destroy WEGO combat. I'm stunned...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Lee:

Wow, I'm shocked to hear this. The Tac AI is now actually inferior to the CMI games?? Like in the example above, an APC or such now won't automatically back up and try get out of LOS if it spots an enemy tank? This sort of good Tac AI reaction is absolutely standard in the CM games, and now all of a sudden it's gone in CMII? Why??

I wonder if it is for performance reasons. Maybe resolving the turn in real time instead of with the blue bar makes it necessary to cut down on AI cycles to keep things moving.

Or maybe the the game really was designed primarily to be played in RT with very small forces that are easy to baby sit, and WEGO was sort of an afterthought. I don't know, just thinking out loud here...

[Childress]

Originally posted by SmithyG:

[QB] At this point i'm not really sure if we should expect a lot of the issues relating to WEGO commands, TacAI and enemy AI to be addressed... or if they're actually design decisions leaning towards a MP RT focused game. Can we get some feedback please?

In the WEGO CM games, the player intervened once every 60 seconds. A refined TacAI was mandatory. Now that we're in RT, or virtual RT, maybe BF expects us to manually pop smoke, reverse the AFVs and retreat the shaky squads to safety. They did excise the Seek Hull Down command so that's become the player's responsibility. If so, I disagree with the decision. As if an actual company commander has the time to attend to these details in a firefight.....The micromanagement would be staggering. And contradicts the philosophy behind real time spotting environment which the game so realistically depicts.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Lee:

Like in the example above, an APC or such now won't automatically back up and try get out of LOS if it spots an enemy tank?

That's right. One of my Strykers just sat there and pinged a T-72 with .50BMG fire until the T-72 finally noticed, with predictable results. disappointing.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lee:

This makes no sense, why make the Tac AI dumber than in the previous CM games?? Everyone was expecting the Tac AI to be at least as good in CMII as in the CMI games, but from what you guys are saying it's nowhere near as good.

Remember though that this is a whole new engine and a whole new AI. It is of course a disappointment that the starting level of the AI isn't better, but I don't doubt that the TacAI and AI in general will be greatly improved in future patches. I don't think the first version of CMBO had that great of a TacAI either...

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

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

They didn't even have the resources to test the it properly.

LOL! Good Lord!

*snip* blah blah blah *snip*</font>

[Darkmath]

All this seems depressing...

Any good comments/ improvements of the AI over previous CM?

But, do you think AI need a complete rewrite or some fixes will make it as good as CMX1? ( damn I can't help it... )

[SmithyG]

Originally posted by Lee:

Like in the example above, an APC or such now won't automatically back up and try get out of LOS if it spots an enemy tank?

Try the demo if you can. I'm sure some of the issues will be fixed... not so sure about others.

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Don't recall ever seeing you on a BFC playtest,

Nor will you, ever, regardless of any possible incentive. I have play tested well over a dozen PC Wargames games (none for BF, nor will I). However, I no longer provide software development services free of charge.

…which pretty much indicates that you don't know what you're talking about….

Yeah, silly-ass me! I just have two degrees in IS and 15 years in corporate software development, with six of it working for the worlds largest consulting firm. In other words that would be better known as “The Real World”; you know that place where if you turn out a buggy system (not saying SF is mind you) you WILL get your rear sued in court every single time.

Don’t start whining about your development/testing woes until you have a corporate VP that has been uninvolved for six months come down to YOUR office a week before international rollout and drop a list of NEW features on your desk for a system that has been in dev for over a year! THAT is “The Real World”.

And don’t EVEN start on how you treat/speak to the customer/client (you remember the guy that pays YOUR paycheck) when they have “issues” LOL!!!!!! Some folks at BF would not last a week. <period>

Yeah, “What the hell do I know”?

If you are suggesting the do open beta tests, that is the worst, the single worst, way to test software.

Who said anything about “open” testing? There are ways…and there are ways. Read a book on software development/testing, or several, then get back to me.

[Xipe66]

You're pretty full of yourself and should probably shut up.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

Yeah, “What the hell do I know”?

You know what your niche of the industry is like, just like I know what my niche is like, and neither is BFC. BFC ain't the company(s) you or I work for, so it ain't the same. So, on this topic, you really don't know what you're talking about.