bartleby Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I generated a quick battle in the hills. It started out fine, I placed my troops and gave them orders. Then I hit go and noticed something strange...they started taking fire at once FROM BEHIND! Apparently the computer had the same setup area as I did! While I didn't accomplish my mission, I can report with some certainty that a Stryker platoon is vulnerable to T-72 fire from the rear. Anyway. I can't really remember the other settings, but it was a real-time game, if that helps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 More quick battle strangeness. Small Attack, Armored Syrians attacking U.S., hills, June, dawn, clear, fair fit armor republican guard vs good fit Stryker. When you hit 'OK', it goes right back to the main menu. Change terrain to 'rough' and it runs just fine. Also, one of the small hill maps, I believe from 'Meeting at High Altitude', the QB deployment areas are messed up, opfor has deploy zone on top of U.S. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 No, I think it depends on the size of the force. Too big a force for the setup zone it bleeds into yours. Will take a look later. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Originally posted by CRourke: More quick battle strangeness. Small Attack, Armored Syrians attacking U.S., hills, June, dawn, clear, fair fit armor republican guard vs good fit Stryker. When you hit 'OK', it goes right back to the main menu. Change terrain to 'rough' and it runs just fine. I have had the same results with the same settings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavtroop Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Yep, nothing on the 'Hills' map works for me, either. I started another thread on this, before seeing this one. Cav 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarUSF Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 If there isn't a map with the settings you requested, it goes back to the main menu. You can see all of the allowed combinations of type (meeting engagement, probe, assault, etc) and environment (hilly, town, etc) in the QuickBattles directory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Zoidberg Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Pretty counter intuitive, to just dump you back to the menu. Or even let you choose the setting at all. On another note, I've played 3 QB's thus far and 2 of the three have had rather poor AI activity. In the last one, I was able to walk my Syrian SF troops through a city once I realised that the entire Uncon opposition was sitting in the farthest corner of the map. One mortar strike managed to kill 68 of 72 guys. The worst thing is that I had actually planned a pretty neat assault and wanted to see how it turned out. Advanced totally unopposed.. I would assume this is a problem with the AI plan (if it even existed for that last map), kind of left wondering how it got through to release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Ya, I'm seeing weak AI on the QB maps.. Not sure if its related to the templates for the map, or the general ability of the AI. I would imagine increased terrain complexity has made AI programming a lot harder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterLorre86 Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I also am noticing weak AI in QB, although i have not moved difficulty to veteran yet. What difficulty are you all using? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Elite, don't believe it affects AI strength, merely game complexity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Two odd events-set everything to "random" (my forces and enemy), crashed to desktop. Second game, I kept all random but for terrain, which I set to "forest"-no forces were present at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarUSF Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The AI for quick battles is scripted very generally, since the designer doesn't know what units will be involved: it's basically a "set up here" and a "move here" order and that's it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Game skill only messes with Fog of War for the most part. No effect on the AI or game mechanics. JagwarUSF is correct about the plans. This is why we game developers hate AI so much! In CMx1 the AI was best at QuickBattles because it was too dumb (so to speak) to care about the specifics of the battle. To it, everything was just attack or defend and use terrain to best advantage with the units allocated. For handmade scenarios CMx1's AI sucked because you couldn't simulate anything specific, like an ambush 15 minutes into a game or a tactical move from one spot to another spot. Again, it just defended or attacked. CM:SF's AI is the opposite. It is MUCH better suited for handmade scenarios, and that was the point. The tradeoff is that it is difficult to get it to behave more generally for QBs. Since it isn't possible for us to code two entirely different AIs, and we feel CM's real strength is in "story based" scenarios, we went with the one that gives us a better result for hand made scenarios. I think as you guys play more and more you'll see why that was a good idea. QBs were always best played multi-player anyway Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: CM:SF's AI is the opposite. It is MUCH better suited for handmade scenarios, and that was the point. The tradeoff is that it is difficult to get it to behave more generally for QBs. Since it isn't possible for us to code two entirely different AIs, and we feel CM's real strength is in "story based" scenarios, we went with the one that gives us a better result for hand made scenarios. I think as you guys play more and more you'll see why that was a good idea. QBs were always best played multi-player anyway Steve [/QB]I totally agree with this. After I learned CMBO I never never finished another game against the AI. Just way to boring. So QBs against humans is the way to go [***I cant help but put a plug in for more QB options for CMSF. Please bring back the unit purchase or something similar:) ***], but I am really like the story driven campaigns. So far that is very fun, even against the AI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Here is a bit of QB strangeness: On my very first QB, I was Syrian and the computer had all it's M1A1's facing opposite direction to me, their rears were facing my attack. Unless this was a simulation of a very surprise attack on US forces from the rear, AI messed up badly. The result is an entire M1A1 platoon and it's supporting elements were wiped out by my BMP-2 attack force without a single loss of any of the BMP-2s (I had zero tanks in my force, just BMPs and supporting infantry). Was pretty funny though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 How about on defense ? Does the AI still get a "move here"-order, or does it just bunch up all it's units ? //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Originally posted by Salkin: How about on defense ? Does the AI still get a "move here"-order, or does it just bunch up all it's units ? //Salkin That's down the AI plan the designer has drawn up. It is possible to have an AI defence, for example, that involves an ambush followed by an attack, then withdrawl. As Steve said above you will only find such complicated plans in story led custom built scenarios. For QB it is difficult to foresee what the player will buy in terms of units. So in QB often the it is easier for the deisgner to give the AI a more 'static' defence plan e.g. ambush at 300m type behaviour. So if you want the AI to fight more 'intelligently' best try out some of the custom built scenarios - see how it performs. Afetr playing a scenario go check out the AI plans in the editor. Most of the custom built scenarios have alternate AI plans so what happens can have a degree of variability. Cheers fur noo George 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarUSF Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 The bottom line is: don't play Quick Battles as single player games It's not the same as the QBs in previous CM games (which I almost exclusively played myself). Do the more scripted and more enjoyable battles instead. 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.