First Impressions of 1.04

[PeterLorre86]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Its an interesting idea, but the CLU and the missile might not actually physically fit up through the hatch. (but I am only guessing about that part) :confused:

Could the CLU and missile be assembled once out of the hatch, thus making it possible to fire from air guard position?

As far as the game, i think it would cause problems. You would have to be able to select which guy does airguard, otherwise you would end up shooting javelins at infantry. Having the Tac AI move the javelin to airguard after armour is spotted probably wouldnt matter, as once amour is spotted its not long before it destroys the stryker. I dont think you can expect this behavior simply because of the codeing problems involved. Not to mention it's not known whether this is possible in real life at this point.

But Red vs Blue where red has armour is definatly a problem, AI needs to be able to recognize that it should dismount and take javelins after the first few strykers get smoked.

Has anyone ever seen the AI use a javelin at all? Currently (1.04) i dont think AI has the ability to take from cargo.

[aka_tom_w]

"Has anyone ever seen the AI use a javelin at all? "

A: No

"Currently (1.04) i dont think AI has the ability to take from cargo."

A: It is impossible, at the present time, for the AI to do that, I believe that is correct.

[panzermartin]

Who cares about the AI anymore. Proper wargames are designed for human vs human and this is where I'm expecting to see improvement. Putting effort on resurrecting a brain dead, scripted TacAi, which has absolutely zero situational awareness and no responsiveness to simulate a fluid modern battlefield is a total waste of time and resources. I dont really blame them for this though, it is nearly impossible to put an auto pilot to such a tactically complex 3d wargame.

Make CMSF a solid multiplayer platform with no bugs and lag problems, with time out points for TCP/IP RT and you'll have a winner.

[C'Rogers]

I dont think its that hard to program. They could also mount up automatically after the armored threat is gone

Hard to program, probably not, but there are a lot of things that could cause frustation.

For example a tank is spotted and a javelin team is released, right next to a squad of enemy infantry that had not been dangerous. They now shoot up the infantry.

A player only has one javelin team and is faced with a multitude of light armor threats and a few heavy's. The player was hoping to use the javelins for the heavies (or building or whatever) but the AI uses it before he wants.

A tank appears, fires, misses, and retreats. AI deploys, then remounts the infantry. Precious time is wasted when the player wanted them to move somewhere.

The point is the player could have a multitude of ideas what he wants the infantry/styker to be doing. Sitting there is by no means ideal, but asking for a complex procedure could easily lead to frustration as the TacAI fights against your wishes.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I dont think its that hard to program. They could also mount up automatically after the armored threat is gone

For example a tank is spotted and a javelin team is released, right next to a squad of enemy infantry that had not been dangerous. They now shoot up the infantry.

A player only has one javelin team and is faced with a multitude of light armor threats and a few heavy's. </font>

[H.W. Guderian]

Originally posted by Ali-Baba:

Who cares about the AI anymore. Proper wargames are designed for human vs human and this is where I'm expecting to see improvement. Putting effort on resurrecting a brain dead, scripted TacAi, which has absolutely zero situational awareness and no responsiveness to simulate a fluid modern battlefield is a total waste of time and resources. I dont really blame them for this though, it is nearly impossible to put an auto pilot to such a tactically complex 3d wargame.

Make CMSF a solid multiplayer platform with no bugs and lag problems, with time out points for TCP/IP RT and you'll have a winner.

I care mate. As do lots of other people who paid for the game "as advertised".

The quoted comments above are very small-minded and ignore a large section of the community.

Not everybody has the time to invest in multi-player play.

[PeterLorre86]

I think what we are doing is running in circles here. We want better AI do to lack of multiplayer, and at the same time better multiplayer do to lack of AI. I dont think that one is more important then the other.

I guess we had hoped and still continue to hope for a better game all around.

I truely hope 1.05 can turn this around, because from what i have read in the forums, it seems that people are loosing patience.

[H.W. Guderian]

Originally posted by PeterLorre86:

I think what we are doing is running in circles here. We want better AI do to lack of multiplayer, and at the same time better multiplayer do to lack of AI. I dont think that one is more important then the other.

I guess we had hoped and still continue to hope for a better game all around.

I truely hope 1.05 can turn this around, because from what i have read in the forums, it seems that people are loosing patience.

Hey Peter,

Speaking from my POV, and given the full range of issues, I'm not expecting all these core problems to be solved in 1.05 (one can hope, though) . . . but as a customer I certainly want it on the record that issues like playing Red armor vs the Blue AI is seriously broken.

Do I wish BFC had put out a mature "non-beta" product, of course, but it is only realistic to accept that this small, dedicated, "boutique product" team is doing it's best. Hopefully their best will be good enough in the end (1.whatever) and they will make good on the product as advertised. (. . . now the instantly out of date mouse-pads, that is another story [=(]).

As far as "patience" goes, and what to do when one sometimes looses patience with CMSF, as I often do - I can recommend playing CMX1 series games - solid wargaming fun.

[PeterLorre86]

Yea, i have to agree with you H.W Guderian, that its not likely all the problems will be resolved in just the next patch, realistically what i want is something that will make CMSF enjoyable to play.

When 1.04 came out, at first i was pretty pleased with it, but after about two weeks i realised that none of the core problems had really been solved. It wasn't long before i stopped firing it up all together, going back the the CM1 series.

I just hope 1.05 changes enough to keep my (and im sure a large number of other's) interest.

[H.W. Guderian]

Originally posted by PeterLorre86:

When 1.04 came out, at first i was pretty pleased with it, but after about two weeks i realised that none of the core problems had really been solved. It wasn't long before i stopped firing it up all together, going back the the CM1 series.

Ditto!

[C'Rogers]

Thats why I said "Stryker overwatches the dismounts with it's 50 cal or 40 mm.

So would the AI thus in addition to calculating tank threats have to determine whether that threats could adequately be suppressed? This is where it starts getting hard to program.

The main point is that every "action" that a player can take, which the TacAI takes on his part, necessitates the TacAI understanding what the player wants to happen (or what a unit would in "real life" do reflexively).

Now if it is something like auto popping smoke, yeah I probably want that to happen. Sure the smoke might block a valuable unit's line of vision thus making the situation worse for the player, but the chances are low. Retreating is again an example of what I would likely want the unit to do, even if it ends up in directions I don't want.

However for the TacAI choosing to dismount infantry, equip them, and have them target something seems to be going to far. I was just trying to list some of the many possible examples were the TacAI could make an incorrect interpretation.

[Other Means]

TBH, if I was driving a Stryker and saw an enemy AFV I'd pop smoke and get to the nearest cover (not reverse necessarily) so it would be good if the TacAI did that too.

It's better than doing nothing.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

However for the TacAI choosing to dismount infantry, equip them, and have them target something seems to be going to far.

How do limbered AT guns behave in CMx1 when they run into an enemy? Do they try to unlimber and engage? If yes (I do not remember), would this not require a similar programming logic?

Best regards,

Thomm

[ November 16, 2007, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Rollstoy ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Other Means:

TBH, if I was driving a Stryker and saw an enemy AFV I'd pop smoke and get to the nearest cover (not reverse necessarily) so it would be good if the TacAI did that too.

It's better than doing nothing.

I think the TacAI should retrace its steps and see if there is an action spot it has traversed that has no LOS to the threat. If it is not too far away, then the best course of action is to just pop smoke and hit reverse until out of LOS of the threat. Only if this action spot is too far away should the Stryker seek other cover, as there is no way of knowing if such a location is in LOS of another enemy unit.

[thewood]

AT guns did not deploy. I am just looking for the Stryker to find cover or do something intelligent until the execution phase ends. While it wasn't perfect in CM1, the instances it worked were far more than when it didn't. I was always much more likely to have a T70 encountering a Panver 4 than a JS2 encountering a Tiger.

Remember its only a 60 sec. time slot. I just want the AFV to do something to live in a realistic manner until I can get to it.

[ November 16, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[panzermartin]

Sorry to sound a bit egocentric but I'm frustrated that CMSF's multiplayer is virtually non existent, while playing single player is from the start a scripted, uninteresting, unchallenging way of playing. Since 1.04 multiplayer is totally broken. Nobody even paid attention that the patch ruined even the basic TCP ip function of the game. Not that it was solid before..huge lags, floating infantry, 3 min delays of orders etc etc.

CM solo is just 1% of the fun you could have versus a human. CMSF could bypass all the AI weaknesses (most of them are humanly impossible to improve) with a proper multiplayer function, opponents finidning lobby etc. It is RealTime now, so a 2player game could not be that time consuming.

[H.W. Guderian]

Originally posted by Ali-Baba:

Sorry to sound a bit egocentric but I'm frustrated that CMSF's multiplayer is virtually non existent, while playing single player is from the start a scripted, uninteresting, unchallenging way of playing. Since 1.04 multiplayer is totally broken. Nobody even paid attention that the patch ruined even the basic TCP ip function of the game. Not that it was solid before..huge lags, floating infantry, 3 min delays of orders etc etc.

CM solo is just 1% of the fun you could have versus a human. CMSF could bypass all the AI weaknesses (most of them are humanly impossible to improve) with a proper multiplayer function, opponents finidning lobby etc. It is RealTime now, so a 2player game could not be that time consuming.

Yo AB,

Frustrated? I just had an ambushing T-72 engage an M1 (the M1 was unaware of the T-72 and presenting it's side-armor, facing another direction) with **MG fire** - alerting the M1 while the T-72 was busy loading a canon round (after engaging a single man crew with HE because I don't have the ability to tell a tank to "engage armor only"). Needless to say the T-72 - even hull down (if that even matters in CMSF) and front-on - was immediately smoked. Yes, frustrated, from a gaming POV.

I don't play Muli-Player at the moment - and I'm a WEGO man - but it is concerning to hear your claims above.

I had no idea 1.04 was a step backward for this area of play?!

At the moment does CM:SF = Combat Mission: Sheer Frustration?

Floating infantry, you say? Maybe the DropTeam devs are getting involved? =)

Given the recent BFC "radio silence" lets hope the action of the 1.05 release speaks louder than the lack of recent BFC words about how confident we all should be that CMSF will eventually be a completely functioning product.

Here's hoping.

[PeterLorre86]

Talking about TacAI dismounting and selecting javelin and firing at the sight of armour:

I can see that yes, it is taking alot of the players function out. In CM1 however, if i remember correctly, an AT gun with a move order while hitched to a HT would unlimber when the HT spotted armour and reacted to it (the HT changing its move path in most cases). The AT gun would then follow its move order which in the few cases where this happen to me, resulted in the gun surviving more often then not untill the point came where i could issue it new orders. Mabey something like this would be useful for how the TacAI deals with APC on armour situations?