Peter Cairns Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 This is one more for Scenario designers. It would be usefull to play "CvC" games so that when designing a map or scenario you could watch it being fought out by competeing AI's to allow you to judge it for balance, playability etc. A Rerun function would allow you to replay a move but with fresh calculations. All the orders would be the same, but if you thought a crucial event was a fluk result you could run it again. That's not to say that you can't have fluk results in a real game, but if you have one when you are "playtesting' you have to go back to the start. There is also the problem that when designing a scenario, no matter how neutral you try to be you know what your enemy has and where it is. You also have to play both sides a couple of times to get it right, which is a fair amount of time for a large map with a lot of units. Any thoughts people, Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Well, for what it's worth, you have my vote! A CvC option would also be nice when you're runing larger campaigns (like CMMC) and want a quick result from a battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: A Rerun function would allow you to replay a move but with fresh calculations. All the orders would be the same, but if you thought a crucial event was a fluk result you could run it again.That's a fluking good idea! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 I support the AI vs AI option completely C vs. C has my vote. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magyar Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 Might work as long as both sides don't have boats (as is) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 ...or other passengers/riders...unless CMX2 remedies this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardem Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Great idea for scenario testers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 I recall first seeing this suggestion waaaay back during the... CMBB Beta? It summons-up a mental image of an extremely lazy gamer in a tattered bathrobe with a beer in both hands, watching bleary-eyed as the game plays itself. Not to say there's anything wrong with that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Oh NO! Nothing Wrong with That! he he -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krill Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Any thoughts people, Peter. I'm thinking the CvC sounds to me like a 'Nice to have'. Good for scenario-designers, but I see little gain for a casual player like myself. And I don't care for a 'rerun' of the movie, it wont add anything to the game for me. Besides, won't that potentially hurt ... ehm ... [mutter] PBEM play [/mutter] ? :confused: Blunt maybe, but these are my thoughts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 It wasn't a rerun of the movie, but to play the same round over with the same orders, but with all the fire calculations redone, so that you could get an idea of whether a result was realistic or a one off, usefull for balancing scenarios, Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalgiris 1410 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 This idea of having the CPU play with itself while I just have to watch is a novel one and it has my vote. However, I would like to see the Strat AI improved to such an extent that not only does this C v C work but to the extent that player can choose to employ different ITs as a substitute for themselves during games. This feature could even be used to simulate having a subordinate providing the player with alternative plans for ordering units or providing orders to units forgoten about etc. This ought to make both set up and ordering phases much faster and hopefully ensure that for Human vs Human games the turns are done quickly enough and to make it more likely that those games get finnished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 Plenty of games have multiple options where one side can be made of up a mix of real and computer players. I know that BF have looked and and discussed the idea of multiplayer games of more than two aside. If this comes through then if theory you should be able to have 2v2 with any combination, of human and AI players. Although I wanted "CvC" as a scenario design aid, As a predominantly solo player, I like the idea of a Battalion action where I play one of the three company Co's and the AI handles the other two. The other one i would like to see as i think it would be both realistic and challenging is seperating Infantry and armour, where my inf Coy was supported by a Plt of Shermans outwith my direct control. Peter. 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.