CM:SF AI (How Smart or How Dumb is it)

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

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

You make that sound so close

[stikkypixie]

As long as everyone one in the game take cover as they should, I'm not the slightest worried.

With my tactical insight even the stratAI in CMX1 was challenging.

[molotov_billy]

So I understand that Strat AI is done by the scenario designer. What happens in the 'quick battle' option where the computer and I buy random force mixes? If I play as a defender, will the AI attack without any pre-planned strategic AI?

[Dr. Zoidberg]

molotov_billy, the way I understand it is that because you are still playing on a pre-built map then the same AI plans will apply.

[Moon]

In order to play a QB you'll need maps with appropriate AI plans. Sometimes you can simply use an existing standalone map, but it may have plans that are finetuned for a specific force composition, so usually it's best to use special QB maps (or at least edited standalone maps with the AI plans adjusted to the more generic nature of a QB). The game comes with a bunch of premade maps already of different sizes and types.

Or of course, you can play a QB on pretty much any other map against another human, since then no AI plans are required at all. I suspect that this will be the most favorite way for people to play QBs.

Martin

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Moon:

I suspect that this will be the most favorite way for people to play QBs.

Most favourite, perhaps, but I suspect not the most often used.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

I suspect that this will be the most favorite way for people to play QBs.

Most favourite, perhaps, but I suspect not the most often used. </font>

[Cameroon]

I don't find it unbelievable at all, I far and away play more games by myself than against/with other people.

While I do enjoy playing with/against other people, because I work with people all day long there's a strong (strong) entertainment value derived from NOT dealing with other people - even in a game.

[Sirocco]

PBEM, etc., are obviously the greater challenge, even with a mediocre opponent - such as myself - but solo play is the most convenient if nothing else. And the computer won't bail early, either, when the chips are down.

[Moon]

Yes, Michael Dorosh, you have interpreted Steve's comments correctly, but missed that he was talking about the most favourite way to play CM, while I was speaking about what I presume will be the most favourite way to play QBs in CMSF. These are two different things.

If playing against the computer opponent in CMSF, you will want to play a standalone mission and not a QB to be able to use the full range of victory options and other features which are either not available in QBs or dumbed down. QBs, with their randomly generated elements, simply cannot substitute the complexity (and challenge) of a "hand-made" mission.

Martin

[eyepilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...the BF.C line has always been that solitaire play is expected to be the most common means of CM play; CM:SF is expected to be the same. There is an entire thread about this in the CM:C forum right now. It is a bit unbelievable at first, but makes sense. Solitaire players outnumber head-to-head, apparently by an order of magnitude.

-------------------------------------------------

Thanks Mike!

As unbelievable as it may seem :eek: , some of us have neither the time (that would be me), opportunity (me again), or inclination (3 for 3) to play online or PBEM. Therefore , things like AI and replayability become VERY important. Frankly , I'm concerned with the reports on the AI and also on what would appear to be limited engagement AND terrain possibilities. It's also disapointing to hear , from another thread ,that a patch is going to be required right off the bat, no doubt the first in a series. For this and other reasons too I will be waiting , playing the old tried and true , before purchasing.

[Michael Dorosh]

I recently read a great article in Strategy and Tactics from 30 years ago by a wargamer who said that while he loved wargames, he dreaded the thought of spending time with the losers that played them. And so he spent his gaming time by himself. And this was the days before personal computers and artificial intelligence driven opponents. The solitude of wargamers has been a known quantity for decades now.

On reflection, his objections to his erstwhile opponents were not so much hygiene based as one might expect, but basically personality driven, such as the know-it-all, the historically obsessed, etc. We have seen (some of us have been) all those on internet forums. It was a pretty amazing piece given its publication date of 1972. So comforting to know things haven't changed much.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Moon:

If playing against the computer opponent in CMSF, you will want to play a standalone mission and not a QB to be able to use the full range of victory options and other features which are either not available in QBs or dumbed down. QBs, with their randomly generated elements, simply cannot substitute the complexity (and challenge) of a "hand-made" mission.

I personally hated scenarios in CMx1. Being "hand made" can also be a drawback.

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

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

If playing against the computer opponent in CMSF, you will want to play a standalone mission and not a QB to be able to use the full range of victory options and other features which are either not available in QBs or dumbed down. QBs, with their randomly generated elements, simply cannot substitute the complexity (and challenge) of a "hand-made" mission.

I personally hated scenarios in CMx1. Being "hand made" can also be a drawback. </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by AdamL:

If you can't be bothered to download scenarios or make your own then sure, go buy something else - lol.

It's comments like this, and better-worded but similar statements from BFC, that have me very very very gunshy about CMx2. I'm a QB (solo) guy first and foremost and always have been, and I'm definitely getting the picture that us QB guys aren't in the main gameplan.

Now I say this after sporadic reading of the forum over the last year or so and zero experience with the actual game, so I haven't signed a "never play it" clause in blood or anything, but I'm going to be reading the forum very closely over the next few weeks.

-dale

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Salkin:

I didn't exactly hate the scenarios, but my preferred way of playing was definitely quick battles. I guess I'm one of those who like fun over realism , even in terrain .

//Salkin

Have to say I agree. 90% of the games I play are QB. I just like to be able to purchase my units instead of using whatever a scenario designer happens to give me.

I wonder if this is possible - a scenario designer chooses the AI units, positions, and strat AI, but the player just gets a set of points to buy his own units?

[Cameroon]

dalem, I can't say that I've heard anything that implies that from BFC. There are plenty of "my way or the highway" comments from forum members, but then, there always are

Really the difference for QBs are these:

1. No random map generation

2. Due to #1, QBs must be played on maps that have been created by you or the community.

3. Because there aren't "victory flags", QBs will need a little direction.

So instead of generating a Allied Defense map, you'd pick a map set up for an Allied defense. You still purchase your units and the AI purchases its.

Just because I understand why there aren't any auto-generated maps doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have them

[dalem]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

dalem, I can't say that I've heard anything that implies that from BFC. There are plenty of "my way or the highway" comments from forum members, but then, there always are

Really the difference for QBs are these:

1. No random map generation

2. Due to #1, QBs must be played on maps that have been created by you or the community.

3. Because there aren't "victory flags", QBs will need a little direction.

So instead of generating a Allied Defense map, you'd pick a map set up for an Allied defense. You still purchase your units and the AI purchases its.

Just because I understand why there aren't any auto-generated maps doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have them

Right. I'm just very cautious, that's all. I look forward to my caution being unwarranted.

-dale

[Cameroon]

I guess I was just rehashing the only bits I'd heard from BFC on the subject of QBs, none of which was hostile to the concept thereof

[Salkin]

I think we also have to remember that CMSF is a very different beast from what old CM was, so we may be pleasantly surprised by CMSF.

Maybe playing QB scenarios will be great in CMSF.

I stand by my preorder.

//Salkin

This has been a fanboy statement

[Michael Dorosh]

QBs will essentially be "handmade" to continue that word's use - inasmuch as the maps have to be premade, and so do the AI plans. They're really like mini scenarios in that regard.

[MikeyD]

One reason why the Beta guys have hesitated about jumping into the AI topic is we've had the misfortune of seeing how the sausage is made!

Should I be commentiong on the behavior of Syrian mg teams if I haven't touched Syrian mg teams for the last three 'Beta' builds? Do infantry still do 'that thing' i recall them doing two months ago? Us poor Beta guys (yeh, I'm sure you feel sorry for us) have our heads stuffed with countless old resolved issues and non-issues and periphial issues that you guys will never have to think about. Those bastards at BFC have ruined the game for us!

[Moon]

dalem, solo QBs *can* be a lot of fun "out of the box". If you hit the right combination of random factors you might end up with a very enjoyable game. It may not be very realistic, nor very complex, but it can be a lot of fun. I just played a mission with one platoon of Abrams tanks against an mech Syrian company for example. Great fun.

If you know what you're doing, you can also influence a lot of the randomness and pretty much generate QBs on the spot. But since it's random and based on the parameter you set, you can also end up with something less enjoyable. Due to the fact that CMSF gives you a ton more options than the former games, generating good random QBs constantly is even more difficult than in the past.

As long as you don't expect to be able to randomly create an asymmetrical MOUT mission in this way, all will be fine.

Martin

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

dalem, solo QBs *can* be a lot of fun "out of the box". If you hit the right combination of random factors you might end up with a very enjoyable game. It may not be very realistic, nor very complex, but it can be a lot of fun. I just played a mission with one platoon of Abrams tanks against an mech Syrian company for example. Great fun.

If you know what you're doing, you can also influence a lot of the randomness and pretty much generate QBs on the spot. But since it's random and based on the parameter you set, you can also end up with something less enjoyable. Due to the fact that CMSF gives you a ton more options than the former games, generating good random QBs constantly is even more difficult than in the past.

As long as you don't expect to be able to randomly create an asymmetrical MOUT mission in this way, all will be fine.

Martin

Moon-

Actually I don't expect to like CM:SF much at all based on the setting, I'm mainly interested in it for learning the engine and editor, etc. So I;m thinking 'way far ahead.

Like I said, I'm cautious but open-minded.

-dale

[JohnO]

Moon and everybody else, as the person who started this thread about the AI. Let me get this straight, the Strat AI is only as good as the person who design a scenario while the TacAI is hardcoded in the game and can't be changed.

With that in mine does it help that the person designing a scenario have some understanding on how the units fight?

JohnO