JohnO Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Did a search and couldn't find anything on the AI. So the question is "How Smart or How Dumb" is the AI? Reading allot of reviews stating about the problems with the AI. I quote from the Flash of Steel web page which you can read at Flash of Steel "If the setup tells it to advance, it will until it meets fire. Then it stops, never to move until you decide to meet it. If it sees enemy armor, it will attack it with the nearest available unit, so good-bye infantry squad. It won’t seek cover from enemy artillery or make use of terrain in any sensible way. Every battle becomes a turkey shoot. " This is not my opinion. Just a way to ask the tester's what they saw when running the scenarios. JohnO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage2 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I'll reserve judgement until I play it, but Steal Beast PRO PE uses a roughly similar sort of system (minimal unit AI, branching setup by scenario designer). The downside of this system is that the AI is really only as good as the scenario designer makes it. Even with multiple, branching AI paths, it still feels kind of canned at best. But I have no doubt that the CMSF system is different, and hopefully better. Originally posted by JohnO: Did a search and couldn't find anything on the AI. So the question is "How Smart or How Dumb" is the AI? Reading allot of reviews stating about the problems with the AI. I quote from the Flash of Steel web page which you can read at Flash of Steel "If the setup tells it to advance, it will until it meets fire. Then it stops, never to move until you decide to meet it. If it sees enemy armor, it will attack it with the nearest available unit, so good-bye infantry squad. It won’t seek cover from enemy artillery or make use of terrain in any sensible way. Every battle becomes a turkey shoot. " This is not my opinion. Just a way to ask the tester's what they saw when running the scenarios. JohnO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHertogh Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I have a bad feeling about this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by MHertogh: I have a bad feeling about this. I wouldn't worry about it too much, the reviewer is pretty obviously more worried about the lack of tutorials than anything and states in his review that he's never played a CM game. His review of the AI is very likely influenced by his commands and tactics and your mileage, as they say, may vary. I have a great deal of faith in B.F.C. (excepting rune of course) and I'm confident that the AI will meet the standards already set for CMBO, BB and AK. It won't be perfect, it never has been, but it's going to be more than adequate for our needs. That being said, I've never played the game either Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Just so that you read the topic at the link I provided, (which some haven't) which nowhere in this article states anything about an issue of not having a tutorial, Round Table Entry: Artificial Humanity My gaming forum of choice has just discovered Tom Francis’ after action report of a Galactic Civilizations II campaign. As I noted in my brief mention of this AAR a couple of months ago, there’s some curiosity about how much rationalizing Francis is doing to account for the AI’s actions. This rationalization could be seen as the fevered delusions of a games journalist trying to justify the screwy thing that happened to him in a game he was supposed to lose. I prefer to see it as evidence that the game is good. Gamers love to complain about AI, but, like many gamer complaints, I’m not sure if they are saying what they mean. “Bad AI” is used to refer to both predictable computer opponents and unpredictable computer opponents. The term is a catch-all criticism that boils down to “That’s not what I would do in that situation.” There is an unrealistic expectation that the computer controlled enemies or allies play like a human does. And when game designers give the AI a bit of an edge just to keep them from being rolled over, there is a vocal contingent out there that decries this leveling as “cheating”. And nobody likes a cheater. What most gamers want, I think, is an opponent that seems human. Face it, few of us know enough about how AI works to really know what is happening in the code behind the actions on the screen. So there is a natural inclination to connect what the computer opponent does to some sort of reason or logic. Which makes sense, since computer programs are pure logic. But you know that a game is doing its job when gamers talk about “deceiving” the AI not in terms of exploiting a known blind spot, but in terms of pulling off a great con. Things get interesting when people start assigning human characteristics like personality and emotion to the AI. We speak of “angering” opponents. We talk about “making nice” with enemies. And of course these are just rule sets translated to our screens. This is harder to pull off without assigning “personality” traits like Civ IV does. This is part of why Combat Mission: Shock Force is such a colossal disappointment. The AI is unhuman. If the setup tells it to advance, it will until it meets fire. Then it stops, never to move until you decide to meet it. If it sees enemy armor, it will attack it with the nearest available unit, so good-bye infantry squad. It won’t seek cover from enemy artillery or make use of terrain in any sensible way. Every battle becomes a turkey shoot. Where the problem with Theatre of War was getting your own soldiers to stop doing stupid things, CMSF is plagued with enemy forces not doing anything most of the time and when they do things it’s always the wrong thing. So the AI performs in a way that isn’t anywhere near optimal. And the illusion that I am playing against a thinking being collapses. Unless I want to imagine that the soul of General Haig has seized control of all the armies in the Middle East, there is no way to rationalize what is happening on my screen. Compare this to the brilliantly convincing, if not brilliant, AI in the earlier Combat Mission games, a computer opponent that would advance through rough ground, place its guns in intelligent places and even play peek-a-boo with its tanks. Mortar fire would send men running for the nearest building or crater. Yeah, you could trick it, but it never felt like you were taking advantage of it. The Germans were just buying your feint. Or they were shooting too soon because they were so afraid of your reputation as a leader of men. A good AI, then, isn’t the one that always provides a challenge or that can compete with you without cheating. A good AI is one that brings you into the world the designer has created. Civ IV does this by assigning traits and personalities to its leaders. GalCiv 2 does this by some sort of alchemy of priorities and race typologies. X-Com did this by carefully balancing tactical limits and your natural fear of the dark. AI is, ideally, just one ingredient in a stew of immersion.JohnO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zoidberg Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 John, believe Joe was either referring to an article further down the page or was off in dreamland (which, comparing his post and this article would seem to be the case). http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/07/20/the-eyes-of-the-innocent/ Article located here, linked so as to include the comments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Oh really? There is no tutorial, something probably acceptable in a wargame seven years ago, but even this old hand here was a little confused. Not that a good manual is a bad thing, but in-game help is standard now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 yikes. that AI sounds... bad. I'd have to also say I have a bad feeling about this. It also sounds easily correctable (from my limited knowledge). Give it better priorities. Instead of "closest unit", tell it to use closest best unit(s)". So it'll roll out that T-80 instead. Anyway, I'd appreciate the opinion of some one who has played it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by Dr. Zoidberg: John, believe Joe was either referring to an article further down the page or was off in dreamland (which, comparing his post and this article would seem to be the case). http://flashofsteel.com/index.php/2007/07/20/the-eyes-of-the-innocent/ Article located here, linked so as to include the comments. Quite right, I was quickly looking for the information on Combat Mission and went to the lower article that referred to the review done by Tom Clark. I'd still trust B.F.C. on this issue until, or unless, I see evidence to the contrary. And even if there are flaws in the AI, I'd further trust B.F.C. to make it right. Dreamland ... perhaps so ... I guess we'll all see Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma: Oh really? </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no tutorial, something probably acceptable in a wargame seven years ago, but even this old hand here was a little confused. Not that a good manual is a bad thing, but in-game help is standard now.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 I agree Joe. I preorder the standard CM:SF and will be checking it out myself. And I do trust BFC as well and I'm counting the days JohnO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by Ryujin: yikes. that AI sounds... bad. I'd have to also say I have a bad feeling about this. It also sounds easily correctable (from my limited knowledge). Give it better priorities. Instead of "closest unit", tell it to use closest best unit(s)". So it'll roll out that T-80 instead. Anyway, I'd appreciate the opinion of some one who has played it. I'd also like to get a reviewer who differentiated between the TacAI and the Strat AI. The TacAI is the brains of each unit, and if it's got some rough edges then it will impact everyone even if they never play single-player. The Strat AI, though, will determine how viable the computer opponent is. It also seems, to me, that the reviews so far have not taken into account asymmetric objectives. For instance, the comment about the AI not advancing - well, was that because it had a "spot Unit X" that it achieved, so of course it wouldn't press? If that was the case, then it did exactly what it was supposed to do and the conclusion that it behaved badly would be wrong. And I can't help but question some of the "strengths" mentioned of the CMx1 AI. For instance, I never felt I was playing a human because if there was one forested route I knew the AI would send every single unit it had available through that spot. I could rain artillery down on it all day, and they AI just kept using that spot. So this review definitely raises some questions, but I wish there was some more meat that illustrated from where the conclusions came. I'm inclined to trust in BFC as Joe is, to either have done it right or to make it right if there are areas that need work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 MikeyD you do have the game, and can check in here, oh about anytime now. Please 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by dan/california: MikeyD you do have the game, and can check in here, oh about anytime now. Please The 27th is coming fast, gentlemen, hang in there. Note the distinction mentioned above between Strat AI and Tac AI. Unlike CMX1, the Strat AI (I'll go with the terms in use in this thread already) is fully scriptable by the scenario designer. The Tac AI still responds to battlefield stimuli (i.e. buttons up, shoots, takes cover, whatever). Personally - and this is the minority view, but one widely held on this forum - I prefer playing other humans. Having said that, the AI scripts will provide more flexible tools to the scenario designer than the previous system of "fooling" the computer-controlled forces into chasing after flags (or defending them) and not really knowing what it was doing. The scenario designer has more control, and moreover, can provide alternate plans, meaning it won't do the same things every scenario. The Strat AI, though, will determine how viable the computer opponent is. It also seems, to me, that the reviews so far have not taken into account asymmetric objectives. For instance, the comment about the AI not advancing - well, was that because it had a "spot Unit X" that it achieved, so of course it wouldn't press? If that was the case, then it did exactly what it was supposed to do and the conclusion that it behaved badly would be wrong.I have a feeling you'll get a chance to explore all this in the demo. If not, then certainly in some of the scenarios - often you won't know what the enemy's plan is. If he stops, it is very possible he has met an objective and has no need to advance on you. I think that makes it more fun than knowing you are sitting on a flag, so COME AND TAKE IT as they say in Texas. Now you simply don't know what the enemy is trying to do, for sure. "Why is he sitting there? Should I break cover and try for a flank shot? Should I wait for him to come into my ambush?" It increases the tension, which is a good thing. In CMX1, you just knew the enemy would rush onto your flags, hell or high water, so you didn't get that. Now you do. [ July 23, 2007, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameroon Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dan/california: MikeyD you do have the game, and can check in here, oh about anytime now. Please The 27th is coming fast, gentlemen, hang in there.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonar Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I can't see how with the new scripting tools the AI will not be a more capable and more realistic opponent.For me this is probably the most exciting feature to be included in the new build. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoxSpartana Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 As long as the TacAI is good I'm set. I do hope the campaign's enjoyable though. But I'm a multiplayer man all the way I kinda wish a dev member would comment though EDIT: Dug this up: The AI has three levels ranging from the easy to defeat Basic Training level to the very difficult Elite difficulty level which will give seasoned grognards a real challengeFrom http://www.deafgamers.com/07reviews/combatmission_shockforce_pc.html OP what "reviews" that you've been reading "a lot of" are you referring to? [ July 23, 2007, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: NoxSpartana ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 dbl post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MERC Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 However, what the game really lacks is a proper tutorial. Another quote from the review. I think there we are seeing expectations of two generations collide. In the golden day of wargaming - the (huge) manual was the tutorial. You would have to read it to front and back then play a little and then read it again. The new "console" gamer generation is now use to jumping into training games and have the game walk them through "training". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoxSpartana Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Are you a tester/dev AdamL? And yeah training thread would be great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Originally posted by NoxSpartana: Are you a tester/dev AdamL? Would you know one if he hit you over the head? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I am not in the least bit worried about CMSF AI. I own CMBO , CMBB, CMAK and have always noted ONLY improvement. Battlefront has great vision and a proven track record. So stock up on coffee and munchies, you're just 96 hours out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 deleted per user request 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.