BDW Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 This sounds great! How does this "Plan" concept affect QBs vs the AI? Can QBs create Plans that make sense? Or are Plans left out of QBs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Bright buttons! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Steve and Madmatt, Wunderbar! Suggest you buy stock in whatever firm makes Depends, because the scenario designers are likely to lose control. I'm thrilled, and I have yet to make a single CM scenario of any type, unless QBs count. Absolutely love the idea of being able to program alternative battle plans and then weight their selection likelihoods. That we get graphic control measures (phase lines, sector boundaries, permitted fire zones, etc.) in any form is great news, but I join the growing chorus of those who want the players to have them and not just the AI, if nothing else but for the simple reason that they are fundamental to modern combat operations, even moreso in this digital everyone sends info to everyone age. This was emphatically driven home last night when looking at the tactical displays on the Stryker command vehicle last night on the latest episode of FutureWeapons. The screen was full of GCMs. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I'd really like to take a scenario without plans (say, a QB), have two players each make a plan for one side, and have the engine play the game AI vs AI. After some number-crunching and watching the game we'll see who won. Not that I expect this to make it into the game, but it's a nice daydream. Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: I'd really like to take a scenario without plans (say, a QB), have two players each make a plan for one side, and have the engine play the game AI vs AI. After some number-crunching and watching the game we'll see who won. Not that I expect this to make it into the game, but it's a nice daydream. Dschugaschwili OH Yes That's my wish as well, (I don't expect it in the game either) but I would think it would be a BLAST to take ANY scenario and program/plan out the battle plan for one side, and challenge another player to lay out their battle plan, THEN let the AI run Vs the AI without any further player interference. Programer/planner vs Programer/planner played out as AI vs AI. NOW that sounds like a great option or alternative to play the game. (BUT I have no expectation that was a design goal for inclusion this current game, maybe next time around.) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Guys, The use of the AI planning tool is easy, yet powerful. I just created a test scenario where you have to rescue an ambushed column. For the Syrian's I created 2 plans. I will try to keep thing vague so that if included in the CD, you won't have spoilers. Plan 1 has units coming from the North to reinforce the ambush. An option for 1 group has it reinforceing, then assaulting the trapped units. Plan 2 has the units coming from the North moving into ambush position to catch the American relief column. Plan 3 has units coming from the west and south, with an all out assult on the trapped units then moving into another part of the town to trap the American relief column. Plan 4 has units coming from the west and south and moving directly to cut off the relief column. Each time the game is played, it could play out differently. Not only the plan, but within the plan what the units are going to do. I did NOT include phase lines for the Americans, as it is a rescue mission where they will have to decide between speed and caution. However, it other scenarios I have marked phase line where each platoon has an objective. As a scenario designer, this will be all up to you. Oh yeah, the guys love the scenario. Something about being evil.... Rune [ February 14, 2007, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: rune ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 There is one serious flaw in all this ..... I can't find the 'buy now' button anywhere!! My credit card number merely awaits a destination. It makes me feel less bad about screaming for it when I have already paid for it. [ February 14, 2007, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: dan/california ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonar Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 This sounds amazing,with that level of involvement in the way the scenario's play out and the one metre tile's, a lot of people who have been wringing the life out of the old editor for years, are going to go to town on this. I think this is going to be like Black and white vs colour t.v. and my beloved cmbb is going to look so dated, that I can see it being consigned to the misty eyed memory cateogory. One question, can we have AI vs AI battles to test scenario's etc,or set up Historical engagements (WWII hint) and watch the results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I am pretty sure Steve is on record somewhere (?) on this forum, as stating there will be NO AI vs. AI battles or capability supported in CM:SF (But I hope I am wrong.) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 An old post from Aug 31 2005 about Strat AI The StratAI will hopefully be better in CMx2 than in CMx1. But there is only so much we can do with it. Unfortunately, programming AI is akin to filling a leaky bucket with water using a teaspoon. It seems that no matter how fast you go, and how smart you are about it, the level never really gets much higher. And while you are expending so much energy and concentration on filling the bucket, you aren't paying attention to the chicken and steaks on the BBQ. Then you have to remind yourself, people did not come to the party for a drink of water [big Grin] Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 There are no plans on allowing AI vs. AI battles. We feel there is limited appeal to supporting this feature. A few people would find it fun to watch a couple of times, then they will likely never use it again. At least that's the way we see it. But who knows... maybe some day we will allow it if there isn't a major performance hit from having two AIs running concurrently. At the moment QBs are 2 player only because, as people rightly guessed, the AI tools I just outlined require Human input. Have no fear, we're going to fix that The resulting AI will likely be better than CMx1, but not as good as it could theoretically be. To make it better we'd have to invest a lot more time than we want to or have to invest. See Tom's quote above Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 14, 2007 Author Share Posted February 14, 2007 Hoolaman, I was wondering the same thing. I think these tools could be used to help pre-battle planning, but also C&C simulation and also help with co-play in the future if they are given to the human controlled side.Correct. Our development strategy is to introduce HUGE features in more reasonable bite sized chunks. The AI system you see outlined here is the foundation for more things to come in the future. Most notably CoPlay. Players on the same side will need ways of communicating with each other, especially if some of those players are controlled by AIs. Such features are impossible for us to introduce now, but we're laying the groundwork for them so we don't have to rip stuff out and start from scratch. The benefit to you guys is that the game gets noticably better with each major release instead of having nothing for 5 years. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: At the moment QBs are 2 player only because, as people rightly guessed, the AI tools I just outlined require Human input. Have no fear, we're going to fix that The resulting AI will likely be better than CMx1, but not as good as it could theoretically be. To make it better we'd have to invest a lot more time than we want to or have to invest. See Tom's quote above Steve Fixed for CMSF or for subsequent releases? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 OMIGOD! BFC DROP Vs. AI BATTLES! Had that been PBEM.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am about this announcement! This means that players who have hard time finding time to play online or with a live opponent, can be challenged anywhere at anytime (without need for the internet) by the likes of Rune and associates! (only evil scenario designers need apply). These new "planned" (now with up to five alternative options or strategies or attack or defensive plans!) scenario's will give the solo player a REAL challenge like they are playing against at REAL human opponent (clever, gamey, and tactically challenging) without waiting for the next PBEM to arrive or even waiting for their opponent to complete the move in TCP/IP play. This is like FREEDOM 55! Free of time and internet constraints to pit your wits against a HUMAN programed AI and a now clever and deceitful opponent! This is HUGE. Not to mention the thrill of trying to program or plan one of these scenarios for other folks to enjoy. I CAN'T WAIT! -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 A couple of questions about this new tool: -can reinforcements be Groups? -can parts of a reinforcement belong to more than one Group? So for example tanks would be part of GroupA and some infantry part of GroupB. Both would appear at the same time, but would have different orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Slowmotion: Can reinforcements be groups - Yes No, you can only belong to one group. However, your reinforcements can be split into multiple groups. Semantics, but I don't want anyone thinking a squad of infantry can belong to two groups. So then yes, the reinforcement would have 2 groups each with its own set or orders. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Ok, another question: would it be possible that a Group has units that start from first turn and ALSO units that come as reinforcement? So let's say some infantry is there when a scenario starts. They start advancing according to the plan. Then after some turns reinforcements appear. Can this later arriving bunch join the initial group? If this is possible, one might think they could even advance along different paths if their starting point was different. Think about moving from North to South along an Area the shape of letter Y. One group moves from the left and one from right. (had to use * to fill area because extra spaces were removed). infantry________tanks (reinforcement) *****\***********/** ******\*********/*** *******\*******/**** ********\*****/***** *********\---+****** ************|****** ************|****** *****___Both try to move here. [ February 15, 2007, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: SlowMotion ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirling Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Will there or will there not be human vs computer QBs in the initial release? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Slow Motion Why not give the reinforcing group the same or complementary orders or objectives as the onboard group. That's my guess, anyway.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Flammenwerfer: I'm not saying I wouldn't do it like you wrote, just trying to get an idea of how things can be done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 I would make them seperate groups. The reason? Waypoints in the middle. Orders are carried out consecutively, so I would want the reinforcements to go to point a, dismount, then advance to point b, then assault point c. This way you can chose one route for plan a, and maybe for plan b, just go to point b and await in ambush. I tend NOT to mix the reinforcements with the starting positions. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Thanks for the answers. Now we'll just wait for the game to be released. Scenarios against the AI can be made so much better with this feature. The AI can have several goals which change during the scenario. What those goals are cannot be easily guessed simply by checking from the map where the victory flags are. [ February 15, 2007, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: SlowMotion ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Jim, We're planning on single player QBs for CM:SF 1.0. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim crowley Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Jim, We're planning on single player QBs for CM:SF 1.0. Steve Thanks Steve. I must confess that from the time of the original announcement about CMSF, I had zero interest in the subject matter. Being one of those WW2 "bores", I couldn't see anything of interest for me; either modern or, much less, Syrian. However, the concepts and features of this game are intriguing and while the subject matter still leaves me cold, I shall no doubt buy it to try out those very features. With a view, of course, to seeing how they will work with the next, WW2, installment The next one will be WW2, won't it? 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.