Itael Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Since the core of the CMx2 Engine is Real Time,and the good old WEGO was thrown in as a "bonus" I don't see how BF can make the TacAI any better. If you play in RT and your soldiers start to take fire, you pause the action and give them orders to take cover, run or wahtever. In other words YOU are their TacAI... In WEGO when your soliders get shot, you are staring at them getting butchered for the remaining seconds until the turn ends, because the TacAI is not smart enough to tell them to seek cover,shoot back etc. Now, it's not that the TacAI is not existing.. it's just that the CPU resources handle the Real Time engine and takes the important power FROM the TacAI. in Previous CM games you only had WEGO so the CPU power took as long as it needed to calculate the TacAI, so it behaved realistically to what happened in those 60 seconds of action. It also explains to me why the TacAI in CMSF appears to be better in smaller scenarios, because with less troops the CPU can spend more time calculating realistic behaviors. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am correct then the only way to enjoy CMSF fully in WEGO will be in two years, when the PC's are stronger. Itai [ July 31, 2007, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Itael ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I can't imagine a connection between TacAI problems and CPU ressources. That would mean, stronger processors, better AI. That is ofcourse not the case: if the CPU is too slow to handle all requests within time, the framerate drops. I'm sure the TacAI problems have nothing to do with CPU power. And compared to the necessary calculations for the graphics and physics engine, they can be neglected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 It was my thought also. This game is bascially RT, with WEGO thrown in for singleplayer and PBEM only, as a "bonus". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Itael: Please correct me if I am wrong,You are wrong. Please, please, PLEASE, if you don't have a clue and can't STFU at least try not to go off on a an epic journey of wild speculation? KTHXBYE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavtroop Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 He's wrong about what? the one minute calculation aspect? I'll give you that. But you have to admit, WEGO is barely an afterthought here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itael Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 OK, Maybe it's not entirely CPU dependant, but it sure feels like the processing power goes to the graphics instead of the TacAI. What made CMx1 so special was seeing how the soldiers reacted to things that happened to them during the 1 minute "action" phase. Now it seems as if they follow your orders with no self preservation or "common sense". Itai 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I remember in pre CMBO days, the concept of calculating turn results, then displaying them, was intended to conserve CPU cycles. Made a lot of sense then. It seems to me that the decision to abandon that must have been motivated by the desire to move to continuous (real time) tactics. I don't think that the WePauseWheneverThenWeGO is fundamentally flawed, but obviously it must increase CPU load. I'm sure the code is currently written to give priority to the TacAI 1st, graphics second, but executing in real time does kind of tie your hands.. only so many CPU cycles to work with. That, combined with the incredible increase in complexity due to terrain upgrades and 1:1 representation, must make for some challenging coding. I suspect its also a motivated behind the focus on smaller battles. In any case, Itael's speculation was presented in a polite manner, I don't see any need for flippant replies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Speculation is only polite when marked as such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Cavtroop: He's wrong about what?He's wrong about saying 'he got it'. And everything else, too. Like Kip, he's out on a limb. If one doesn't have any knowledge, then why claim otherwise? There is the real risk that someone takes it at face value ("ooh golly, he must've heard it from Steve or sumfink"), and after a while everybody "knows" that the reason is RT. Let's not start rumours, 'kay? [ July 31, 2007, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Originally posted by Itael: Please correct me if I am wrong, but ... Itai It is the opposite, so you are indeed wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itael Posted July 31, 2007 Author Share Posted July 31, 2007 I understand that I am wrong, and that makes me very happy because it means that with future patches this game will reach the levels we all want it to. I feared that the problems are deep in the design. Thanks for proving me wrong. Itai 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Sorry, I didn't prove anything - just made a smart ass remark is all. Not worries, my guess is we'll know soon on the particulars. 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.