Will CMx2 be more gentle towards newbies?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

btw, after disgracing the AI, I ran the game again, only this time I picked the AI's troops and didn't buy 'gamey' stuff for myself - the silly AI put a 76mm pillbox behind (yes BEHIND) a house.

grr...

It would have been one hell of a shock for an infantry unit taking the house. Also could serve to protect the firing slit from long-range tank guns. The 76mm pillbox is not a tank killer.

What's wrong with adding forces for the newbie? It worked for me, but maybe I'm a nascent tactical genius?

[J Ruddy]

Disclaimer - CMBB and CMAK are possibly the best tactical wargames I've ever played on the PC.

Not to flog a dead horse - but I tried CMAK East Africa 1940 - Italians Assaulting British.

I purchased units for the the AI (Brits) so I could be sure of an Apples to Apples comparison to my CMBB games from yesterday.

One trench is in an OK position, the other... well... not so much. The 2lb Pillbox is in a rather silly position as there is a small rise in front of it and it can't see down map at all. The choice minefield location is also a bit odd. (unless the ai is trying to keep its own troops from fleeing in that direction.)

I would love to see the AI place units for newbies in CMX2, but in this specific case it may confuse them more than anything. Maybe the old saying is true, if you can't beat them, confuse them?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Having different levels of CPU opponent AI tactical abilities is a good idea and to have it also have different tactical doctinal tendancy options as well.

This would be handy for newbie friendliness as well as for giving veterans a greater challange in solo play. And I absolutely support having the Strat AI not only provide an auto-deploy fuction which also could be availliable in different modes of overriding tactical doctrines as well.

I would also like to have greater use of the Strat AI during game play as an adviser or as a substitute step in handler of my units or those that I haven't ordered, but again with having various commanding officer personalities to choose from.

This would also assist newbies as well as veterans in CMx2 and make it more likely that games especially human vs human games run quicker and actually more than likely finished.

These ideas are all based on having a vastly improved Strat AI that could actually really perform all these function satisfactorily.

[Other Means]

Having an improved stratAI is I think a confirmed goal for BFC.

The idea of having AI levels of difficulty sounds almost impossible to implement. How do you have an AI make bad decisions in a believable way? You could possibly limit information to it but actually having it scale the 'rightness' of its tactical response sounds un-doable.

[Joachim]

Just name the "exp +3" as expert and the "exp -1" as newbie. That might do the trick.

Gruß

Joachim

[Philippe]

I think one solution might be to create a dozen or so really small training scenarios which focus on one or two different game activities at most. They wouldn't really be scenarios in the sense that there wouldn't be a game to play. You just get to see a moving three-D illustration of something that is described in the game manual.

Not having seen CMx2 I can't comment on what that would consist of exactly, but using the CMx1 model one might teach you how to get indirect fire out of an on-map mortar.

These would be tutorials rather than training scenarios, and wouldn't teach you tactics as much as basic game functions: limbering/unlimbering, mounting and dismounting from moving vehicles, etc.

The idea would be to create a set of three- or four- turn illustrations of the basic game functions. For example, a scenario with a platoon, an open field that you have to cross, and something at the other end that is shooting at you. One platoon crosses in walk, one in advance, and one at a run and you get to observe the difference. There could be a variant on the scenario with the ground covered in snow.

It would probably be very boring to write, and would take scenario design time away from something more interesting. But it might help a bit with the learning curve. I think the scenario subjects could probably be culled from the current lists of useful posts about gameplay.

Taken to the n-nth degree you could probably convert the entire game manual into a string of these scenarios. Nobody seems to want to read these days, and this might not be a bad way to teach the game. But who would want to write these things?

[ September 16, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Philippe ]

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by Philippe:

Taken to the n-nth degree you could probably convert the entire game manual into a string of these scenarios. Nobody seems to want to read these days, and this might not be a bad way to teach the game. But who would want to write these things?

I have two battles at TPG that are labeled as tutorials. One for CMAK and one for CMBB.

Someone will make "these things" if someone asks for them.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

CMx2 will be more newbie friendly. We are planning on a "training campaign" and will invite new players to play the game using a sort of beginner's mode. This means features that normally are newbie hostile, such as Relative Spotting, will be turned down as much as possible or disabled completely. The game will play quite differently and some people will stick with it even after they get the hang of it. Steve

You're pandering.

You heard me: PANDERING!

That I should live to see this sort of...

Pandering...pandering...bugger. The word's lost all meaning.

How come Madmatt doesn't send me emails anymore telling me how to deal with the Server?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I think one solution might be to create a dozen or so really small training scenarios...

But who would want to write these things?

Good God, didn't I just abuse you about this?!

What time is it? Are these my hands?

Seriously, Philippe, with a bit of urine and a big ball of clay, I could completely recreate you...

[Philippe]

A few days ago I went on a interview with a Swiss bank and found myself trying to remember how to do a Gnome of Zurich imitation. Then I thought of you. And promptly shelved the idea.

You know what, Seanachai?

You're a failure. A complete and utter failure.

How can you possibly claim to be abusing someone when you've left them laughing so hard they'll have to visit the cleaners?

Discipline and focus, that's what you need, Seanachai, discipline and focus. And Teutonic Method.

It takes true application to make someone's cheeks burn, their eyes water, and the pit of their stomach fall out.

I've drained swill from too many open water conduits in the third world to be effected by a little mild teasing.

And yes, at my last real job we used to compare pictures of our parasites at the lunch tables in the corporate cafeteria.