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

[Lee]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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... </font>

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by Xipe66:

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

Why, becuase of the likes of you? Please that is not even worth a lol.

[Xipe66]

Seriously, re-read your own replies and then get off your piedestal and contribute. lol

[Grumbling Grognard]

"Contribute" to what?

The whining about a game three days old for which I (personally) have been waiting for since I got my first PC (i.e. a graphically pleasing, decently hardcore modern wargame that was not a click fest)

…or perhaps I could join in with the mindless defending of a game I have less than six hours of play time with?

…or perhaps I should simply defend a company I don't work for, never have worked for and frankly don’t have the best “relationship” with?

OR perhaps I could shed some light on a few subjects I 'DO' know quite a bit about like software development and testing?

Take it, leave it or ignore it. I don't care. Nobody pries your eyeballs open and forces you to read my posts let alone respond to them. "Seriously".

[Xipe66]

OR perhaps I could shed some light on a few subjects I 'DO' know quite a bit about like software development and testing?

Oh, I wouldn't think it worth your while; your really shouldn't bother, profane e-mails and the shoddy practices and everything you've "communicated" this far. But please do go continue telling us how supremely qualified you are that you don't actually have to contribute for your non-input to constitute value.

EDIT: vvvv You're a ****ing hack, deal with it. vvvv

[ July 29, 2007, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Grumbling Grognard]

Sure, you shoot me your resume and I will respond with mine. Trust me, you can't afford my rate.

[PFMM]

Grumbling Grognard, not only do you not have a clue about what you are talking about. You haven't even shed any light what-so-ever.

And please, could you pull your pants back up.

[Lee]

Guys, we're discussing the problems with the Tac AI and RT play and such in this thread. If you want to argue over unrelated personal things, make another thread for that purpose.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by PFMM:

Grumbling Grognard, not only do you not have a clue about what you are talking about. You haven't even shed any light what-so-ever.

And please, could you pull your pants back up.

Look, try to keep up. Someone whined that BF did not have enough testing resources (I think that is pretty close to a quote but I am too lazy to look it up). I responded with a lol that in my exper in software dev we have never had access to anything like BF has access to for free. I.E. I was not letting anyone use that as a copout. THEN we get a half dozen fanboys that prolly work at the local 7/11 telling me I don't know what I am talking about.

I got the creds and can back it up. You?

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by thewood:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Cid250]

Originally posted by Jamm0r:

Agreed, and well said. It is indeed obvious now why the developers/testers all prefer RT -- WEGO is pretty much broken.

It's easy to understand why:

WEGO without TCP/IP... it's a great fault in the design!. And many beta testers will be lazy to spend extra time with WEGO.

WEGO - TCP/IP should be a MUST!.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Grumbling Grognard:

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.

Sorry but this is hogwash. The "AI Calcs" in CMx1 took only a few seconds for the computer controlled TacAI. It didn't need a lot of processing power like the calculations for resolving the turn outcome.

Therefore, I think and agree with the developers, that the AI calculations could be handled within the 60 second turn itself. It's probably actually done within the first couple of seconds during the turn itself. Even if it was done before the turn started, like in CMx1, it would only take a couple of seconds.

[Erik Springelkamp]

TacAI calculation must have become a lot more complicated with the 1:1 model.

In the old model a unit was just under fire in a certain terrain type. Now there are 10 figures that are under fire in different conditions. So the complexity of the situation is at least 10-fold.

And 10 times a few seconds takes up a large part of a minute.

[Cid250]

WEGO should have a mandatory exclusive CPU time...

I agree... We don't have WEGO at all in CMSF.

Everything should be calculated under the realm of a progress bar... without time cuts!. Who cares if the progress bar takes 7 minutes or even 10 minutes in a PBEM game?.

[ August 02, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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...)

If you are going to speculate, you'd be wiser to guess that the opposite was true; that RT was so much fun it meant WEGO didn't get as much attention as it could, which is emphatically not the case but would at least make a bit more sense.

I can't speak for the others. My focus was scenario design so I preferred RT to see if basic setups were sound, etc. However, it is important to note that I did play WEGO and did test PBEM as extensively as I could and never considered it "broken" or an "afterthought". No one suggested it as being such and AFAIK both were tested with equal emphasis. My personal preference was definitely RT since it was optimal for my own testing purposes.

Point being, there is simply no truth to the suggestion that "WEGO is broken because it was purposefully neglected." Nothing of the sort occurred.

[Yskonyn]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Point being, there is simply no truth to the suggestion that "WEGO is broken because it was purposefully neglected." Nothing of the sort occurred.

I am sure extensive testing has been done...

The one thing thats bugging me though, is while playing in WEGO and your troops come into contact with the OPFOR they just finish their order no matter what, then just stand there returning fire, usually getting slaughtered for the ongoing remainder of the minute, because they do not have an accomodating AI to let them reverse/run for cover.

In RT you can order them back yourself, but surely in WEGO this must have been an issue being noticed early by extensive testing?

We, as players, already have problems with it the very first days we have the game.

I must admit that its kind of strange that nobody noticed playing WEGO in beta.

This issue can be mean downright defeat in a scenario.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Yskonyn:

I am sure extensive testing has been done...

The one thing thats bugging me though, is while playing in WEGO and your troops come into contact with the OPFOR they just finish their order no matter what, then just stand there returning fire, usually getting slaughtered for the ongoing remainder of the minute, because they do not have an accomodating AI to let them reverse/run for cover.

In RT you can order them back yourself, but surely in WEGO this must have been an issue being noticed early by extensive testing?

We, as players, already have problems with it the very first days we have the game.

I must admit that its kind of strange that nobody noticed playing WEGO in beta.

This issue can be mean downright defeat in a scenario.

In all honesty, some of this may have to do with tactics. The new scenarios are 1.5 and even 2 hours long for a reason - you have to move slowly because weapons are so deadly now. That means slow "tactical bounds". When playing in WEGO, even more so. I don't want to sound overly apologetic as there are definitely TacAI issues that are being worked on; they have been identified in other threads on the forum as indeed you have. But tactics, too, will play a part.

I think they call that "user error" in some places. Slow and steady wins the race. Plenty of covering fire and smaller bounds will help out in some of those cases where you find troops advancing "too far". TacAI fixes will be interesting to watch here also.

[Cid250]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Point being, there is simply no truth to the suggestion that "WEGO is broken because it was purposefully neglected." Nothing of the sort occurred.

WEGO isn't broken... WEGO just doesn't exist at all in CMSF. We have a fake WEGO that is implemented over Real Time.

To consider this game as WEGO, they need to spend another year of development to change lots of things in the core of the game engine. They should start by "yesterday"... since No WEGO = No Wargame at all, due to an RTS AI that will suck for ever (No RTS had a good AI at all in the history of the videogames).

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Cid250:

WEGO isn't broken... WEGO just doesn't exist at all in CMSF. We have a fake WEGO that is implemented over Real Time.

Why is there no WEGO?

[Cid250]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cid250:

WEGO isn't broken... WEGO just doesn't exist at all in CMSF. We have a fake WEGO that is implemented over Real Time.

Why is there no WEGO? </font>

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

In all honesty, some of this may have to do with tactics.

Tactics, in this instance, is a fig-leaf for a dead tac-ai. When my stryker faces a T-72 at 400 yards and just sits there firing .50 while the T-72 rotates its turret and puts some APFDS (or whatever the Russian nomenclature is) through the slats, the tac-ai is effectively non-existent - this breaks wego.

There are a number of other issues with wego, all show-stoppers - the tac-ai issue is just one of the obvious ones.

[Grumbling Grognard]

Well, I don't know if I would call it a "fake" but it sure is not WEGO as the industry defines it nowadays (admittedly only because BF invented it with CM:BO …but as they say “That was yesterday”).

Think about it: In CMSF the AI can not possibly calculate what happens in the last 15 sec of a turn UNTIL after the first 45 seconds have completed.

In the original series it could “click” forward in whatever increments it needed to and crank the calcs as long as needed at each point in the turn... 'THEN' the game moved on to worry about graphics and path finding...shell trajectories...et al.

This is 'not' the case in CMSF and it has more to worry to about than just how much horsepower your CPU can push.

How can the program possibly know what happens in the first 50 seconds of a turn so as to crank that extra cycle or three to figure out what to action to take in the last 10 seconds? Well of course it can’t because the game is still running in real time and pushing graphics and doing morale calcs and displaying the nice graphics... etc... etc... etc... (yes 3 of them 'cuz they are NICE extras! )

If you choose the option labeled "WEGO" you just get real-time with convenient, preprogrammed pauses every 60 seconds plus the neat feature of the replay button (‘not’ sarcasm! :cool: )

But, that still don't make it "WEGO" by a long shot. Reminds me a nice patch (say v1.05 or so) would be to allow us to chop the WEGO turn down to 15/30 sec or something, it might “help” some “issues” (just an idea mind you) and we would still have our replay

But, with that said and considering how much more powerful CPUs are now and a patch or three and BFs history the AI 'could' be made to be playable-good (I doubt ever "great", just a gut feeling mind you). But for now, I have shelved it.

It is just too bad that the game will never be what a lot of the old fans of the series hoped for because it is based on and uses a real-time engine regardless of what option you pick when you fire up a scenario.

[ August 02, 2007, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Grumbling Grognard ]

[metalbrew]

Cid250, we get your point. We got it the first 20 times you said it. I understood exactly what you meant the next 20 times you said it. Sometime during the final 20 times you said it it became just whining.

For the love of all that's holy, STFU.