Game balance and AI - A few questions

[NoxSpartana]

I'm just wondering how the devs will keep the campaign from being a cakewalk. Obviously, since the game is hyper-realistic, U.S forces will be clearly technologically superior to Syrian troops. Will the Syrians be put on an equal plane through superior numbers or what?

Second question: Will the AI be significantly better than in the CMx1 series? Has this been discussed at all? For me, this was the critical downfall of CMAK and CMBB. The AI was... pretty much terrible, and stood no chance against a decent human opponent. If the semi-dynamic campaign is to be enjoyable, the enemy AI needs to be good.

[Sergei]

This probably explains it best: Asymmetrical warfare as explained by Moon

[NoxSpartana]

What about the AI?

[Kommissar]

I think there's misconception that US forces are vastly superior to other countries'. In terms of logistics and air power, they are - but not in ground forces. Let's not forget that in Iraq, fighting poorly equiped combatants, they've take over 10,000 casualties. A US soldier, or even a vehicle, is far from invincible.

While they may have somewhat better equipment, a gunfight is still lethal to both sides.

[Moon]

Nox... you should check the Blogfront at www.battlefront-newsletter.com. In one of the blog entries, Steve explaines how AI scripting is going to work in the game for a scenario.

Martin

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Kommissar:

I think there's misconception that US forces are vastly superior to other countries'. In terms of logistics and air power, they are - but not in ground forces. Let's not forget that in Iraq, fighting poorly equiped combatants, they've take over 10,000 casualties. A US soldier, or even a vehicle, is far from invincible.

While they may have somewhat better equipment, a gunfight is still lethal to both sides.

Well actually. . . over 25,000 casualties to date, IIRC.

But I don't think this statistic has much bearing on CM:SF. As BFC has stated 1,000 times, CM:SF is being built to simulate "hot" wars, like the initial invasion of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom), not the ensuing insurgency/counter-insurgency conflict.

The vast majority of the U.S. casualties have come in the anti-insurgency campaign, from IEDs, sniper ambushes, and the like. Casualties in the initial invasion were extremely low.

No argument with the your point that US soldiers and vehicles are far from invincible, though. I just think it's important to remember that what we've been seeing in Iraq for the past few years is a poor model for what it would look like if the US were to decide to invade Syria in 2008.

However, I do think it the current situation in Iraq is a very good indicator of what would happen after the inital "hot" phase of any invasion of Syria. Probably worse, since even if things in Iraq take a sudden miraculous turn for the better, significant numbers of US troops would presumly still be tied down in Iraq, leaving any "peacekeeping" troops in Syria stretched paper-thin. :eek:

Hence Steve's point that, in the Real World, an Invasion of Syria is about is likely as an invasion of Mars.

Cheers,

YD

Cheers,

YD

[Sergei]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

significant numbers of US troops would presumly still be tied down in Iraq, leaving any "peacekeeping" troops in Syria stretched paper-thin. :eek:

Unless BFC chooses to paraphrase The Onion... Bush reveals his 'exit-strategy': "We'll go through Syria"

[MikeyD]

"U.S forces will be clearly technologically superior to Syrian troops"

Ah, but they'll be commanded by you and me which will be a plus for the Syrians!

I can't imagine how an advance after the expected massive prepatory airstrikes could be modeled unless you want to play a boring 30 minute game that opens with no living enemy and a landscape studded with burning vehicles. Much of U.S. combat superiority is in deep precision airstrike an with 2nd echelon reinforcement supression with MLRS (we were planning for 40 years to fight the Soviets after all). A small unit tactical game like this presupposes that some Syrian troops have made it through the opening barrage and have come ready to fight. Another U.S. superiority is (theoretically) in battlefield awareness. spy planes, satellites, drones. But it seems much ground has been made up in that regard simply by the advesary's use of Nokia celphones! Now whenever a U.S. unit goes on a raid there's always the chance someone along the route has text messaged your target that you're on the way.

[Tarquelne]

A small unit tactical game like this presupposes that some Syrian troops have made it through the opening barrage and have come ready to fight.

Yeah... Even if the vast majority of the encounters in a given conflict are extremely one-sided, we can always play the exceptional ones. The interesting ones.

The great thing about the new victory conditions is that they can level the playing field a great deal. To win a scenario a "vastly superior" force won't just have to win, it'll have to get a vastly superior win.

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by Moon:

Nox... you should check the Blogfront at www.battlefront-newsletter.com. In one of the blog entries, Steve explaines how AI scripting is going to work in the game for a scenario.

Martin

I checked the blog but the only thing I could find relating to CMSF was something on Asymmetrical Wars and how there will be multiple objectives in each scenario. Could you direct me to where the AI is discussed? Thanks!

[rune]

As a scenario designer, I can "program" the AI to behave certain ways. For example, if plan a is picked [by the ai at the start of the scenario], I could have a group of Syrians wait in ambush, but if Plan B is picked, as soon as the Americans are sighted, they can open fire. If plan C is picked, I can have the Syrians hide, then move or assault a different position. So, along with the Ai being smarter, I can tell it what I would like for it to do.. The same scenario may NOT play out the same way, then again, it is random and may play the same way. It works, and it works well, but I am not going to give specifics, as things may change with the amount of goodies or other internal things. I actually got Charles to stop coding with a scenario I created using the AI, and to play it. Don't worry, I won't do that often.

Rune

[Sixxkiller]

Who says this is going to be a cakewalk? If you think like that, then the Germans would have walked over everyone in CMx1. Remember according to all the information, the Syrians have quite a lineup to make up for your percieved deficencies in quality of equipment. Also you have to remember that most scenario designers are going to have the Blue Forces on the attack which means that the Red player is going to become a very good ambusher. Add that to liberal force specific objectives and this game isnt such a cakewalk.

Plus I am betting the AI is going to be improved, especially if the AI is a player who knows how to use the IED's.

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A small unit tactical game like this presupposes that some Syrian troops have made it through the opening barrage and have come ready to fight.

Yeah... Even if the vast majority of the encounters in a given conflict are extremely one-sided, we can always play the exceptional ones. The interesting ones.

The great thing about the new victory conditions is that they can level the playing field a great deal. To win a scenario a "vastly superior" force won't just have to win, it'll have to get a vastly superior win. </font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Alot has to do with scenario design and how the designed inputs objectives and AI battle plans

Alot has to do with casulties as well.

This is not WW2 where 40% casulties were ok.

If an RPG round hits a styker and burns up the crew and the rifle squad inside.

That is a disaster as far and the US army is concerned and that mission is probably going to be a failure

So the Syrian player is just going to have to pick and choose his chances and hope for some luck.

Ambushes will help alot as well as using good defesnive terrian.

Also from my early playtests the Syrian player does not have much in the way of long range firepower.

You best bet is to hit the US side with short range ambushes maximising suprise and volleys of machine gun and rifle fire mixed with RPG rounds.

Then break off contact and fall back and set it up all over again.

Rinse and repeat

Syrians tend not to react well to fire and the US side can bring to bear heavy firepower very accuratly in short order.

Your Syrian forces tend to melt under fire.

A typical Syrker platoon even when mounted can bring to bear 4 .50 HMG and then various small arms fire from within the vehicle.

If any tanks or MGS systems are around then you will find your squads blown to bit very quickly.

So its best to fire and keep up combat for 45-60 seconds and then disengage to better defensive posistions

At the platoon level I have been doing this very well with my weapons squad covering the two other squads.

If I have a MMG in the mix then I can really pin down the US forces and fall back with few casulties

[rudel.dietrich]

I also want to add, I plan on writing a Syrian tactics guide out and am hoping to get it included in the manual

[CaptPigglesbeThe3rd]

The Syians sound the fun side to play.

Anything that forces the Americans forward

(IE limited time or moves to objectives in

the game mechanics) should crank up the

challenge factor.

But I still like the sound of Syrian side

I feel it will be a challenge to get a win.

Interesting short on Syrian Miltary.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0108_s1.htm

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Alot has to do with scenario design and how the designed inputs objectives and AI battle plans

Alot has to do with casulties as well.

This is not WW2 where 40% casulties were ok.

If an RPG round hits a styker and burns up the crew and the rifle squad inside.

That is a disaster as far and the US army is concerned and that mission is probably going to be a failure

So the Syrian player is just going to have to pick and choose his chances and hope for some luck.

Ambushes will help alot as well as using good defesnive terrian.

Also from my early playtests the Syrian player does not have much in the way of long range firepower.

You best bet is to hit the US side with short range ambushes maximising suprise and volleys of machine gun and rifle fire mixed with RPG rounds.

Then break off contact and fall back and set it up all over again.

Rinse and repeat

Syrians tend not to react well to fire and the US side can bring to bear heavy firepower very accuratly in short order.

Your Syrian forces tend to melt under fire.

A typical Syrker platoon even when mounted can bring to bear 4 .50 HMG and then various small arms fire from within the vehicle.

If any tanks or MGS systems are around then you will find your squads blown to bit very quickly.

So its best to fire and keep up combat for 45-60 seconds and then disengage to better defensive posistions

At the platoon level I have been doing this very well with my weapons squad covering the two other squads.

If I have a MMG in the mix then I can really pin down the US forces and fall back with few casulties

Are you a dev/tester? About the manual, is this going to be one of those sweet 200+ page ones?

[Sixxkiller]

The manual is going to be sweet? Will it be made of candy? I want mine in a caramel and chocolate flavor please!

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by NoxSpartana:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Are you a dev/tester? About the manual, is this going to be one of those sweet 200+ page ones? </font>

[Moon]

There will be a printed manual for the hardgoods version and a PDF manual for the download version. Pretty obvious I guess

The manual will come in at close to 200 pages all in all, yes, mainly because of large Editor and Encyclopedia sections. Not sure if we can have all of those printed, though, because timing is essential for that. It's possible that some sections will have to go into the PDF only. (This will definitely be the case for the retail release.)

The manual is structured differently than the CM1-3 manuals, though, so some of the info is more condensed while more emphasis is given on other things. This also has to do with the fact that by now people are much more used to the kind of 3D strategy environment than when CMBO came out So we can cut that short and focus more on CMSF specific things.

Martin

[Sequoia]

Martin, who's writing the manual?

[Battlefront.com]

Many, many people The basis are design notes generated by me over the last 3 years. Much of it is inaccurate or incomplete, so we've been taking turns tightening things up just to get the facts right. Then we have to make sure it is readable.

CMBO's manual went through the same process. Manuals are a real chore to produce, that's for sure. When I worked for Impressions we had two people that wrote manuals as their full time jobs. CM's manuals are in no small way influenced by them (a virtual thanks to Todd and Lorren!)

Steve

[CaptPigglesbeThe3rd]

Any plans for another stratgy guide like that

writen by Mark Walker.

I brought a set of CM games as a present

and found it explained alot of stuff better

than I or the manuals could.

[Thomm]

I just finished reading "Thunder Run".

Conclusions: the US found themselves under a lot of pressure in this mission, even though (1) the Iraqis appear to have been rather bad shots on average (2) they lacked coordination and tactics (3) the Abrams and Bradley tanks appear to be 99.9% RPG-proof (4) the body armor seems to reduce US casualties to a minimum.

Nevertheless, the mission success depended on a convoy of soft skin supply vehicles, which were far from indestructible, as described in the book, and tanks and IFVs were, at times, forced to retreat from Iraqi infantry armed with little more than AKs and RPGs!!

Replace the tanks and IFVs by soft-skinned Strykers, raise the skill of the defending infantry, and add some more sophisticated weaponry then you should have quite a fight!

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: Will ammo and fuel trucks be in?!

[Sequoia]

The US will have trucks but no fuel trucks, as far as I know, and fuel is not tracked so there's really no point in them. Ammo is tracked per vehicle/soldier but as far as I know no ammo resupply during a game.

[Thomm]

I was not thinking in terms of resupply, but in terms of mission objectives, as in "keep (insert number) supply vehicles alive".

Fuel tankers would add atmosphere and the danger of a spectacular 'boom' when hit!

Best regards,

Thomm