Revival of CMAK's Hunt as a workaround

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, this thread sure leaves me regretting that I participated.

For all their claims on how the opposite numbers are irrational and overly emotional, some of those defending the status quo sure did not feel themselves above re-fighting the old thread in the same negative tone.

[Guest]

I guess that was just my ignorance speaking...

About the AI thing? Not to worry. It's not precisely... common knowledge, how hard it is to make AI "do" tactics. And now you know.

[winkelried]

The CMBB and CMAK nostalgia is funny anyways.

It's normal human behaviour - I am in change projects in business now for more than 20 years and there is one single constant: "in the past even the future was better".

BTW the whole things resembles the 5 phases you find in all change projects; shock, denial, depression, insight, learning.

lucky those who are already learning

[Erwin]

To be fair, CM1 and CM2 are different games. It's like saying chess is SO much better than checkers, or dominoes.

People play CM1 and CM2 for different pleasure reasons.

[ClarkWGriswold]

About the AI thing? Not to worry. It's not precisely... common knowledge, how hard it is to make AI "do" tactics. And now you know.

Is the concern about changes giving the AI problems having to do with the tacAI or the strategic, map plan AI? I'm struggling to see how a change to the old style Hunt command would have a negative effect on the tacAI. I find it even more difficult to see how changes to movement orders that the AI doesn't use (I understand that they don't use Normal or Fast movement, for instance) would impact them in any fashion whatsoever.

[Guest]

Is the concern about changes giving the AI problems having to do with the tacAI or the strategic, map plan AI?

Both.

I'm struggling to see how a change to the old style Hunt command would have a negative effect on the tacAI. I find it even more difficult to see how changes to movement orders that the AI doesn't use (I understand that they don't use Normal or Fast movement, for instance) would impact them in any fashion whatsoever.

The AI uses all of the types of movement orders. And a change to the old style Hunt command would *require* a TacAI change, since the TacAI handles the logic. You'd have to make the TacAI able to do it, for it to work.

There's not a negative effect, per se, there's just a whole ton of difficult work.

[Battlefront.com]

The CMBB and CMAK nostalgia is funny anyways. I remember when CMBB came out many players decided it was completely unplayable because the T-34s were undermodelled as far as the guns, and a 'host of other game breaking issues'etc.

Heh... or the outcry against the MG modeling behavior that made SMG Squad rushes a thing of the past. Sometimes fixing something for one group means breaking it for another. Which is why we try to stick to modeling reality as best as possible and accept that some will be turned off by it.

Well, this thread sure leaves me regretting that I participated.

For all their claims on how the opposite numbers are irrational and overly emotional, some of those defending the status quo sure did not feel themselves above re-fighting the old thread in the same negative tone.

The difference is nobody defending the "status quo" is actually defending it. I'm certainly not, and neither is Phil. We're explaining why it is what it is and why it won't be fixed right away. I also feel I have to, once again, explain the boundaries for criticism and debate because it's unfortunately necessary. I'm not emotional about it at all... I just have to remind people of the rules. I cut critics a lot of slack, but I can't let them run roughshod over the process. That would be to the detriment of everybody. If people don't like being reminded that they've stepped over a line, the easiest thing to do is not do it again.

Is the concern about changes giving the AI problems having to do with the tacAI or the strategic, map plan AI? I'm struggling to see how a change to the old style Hunt command would have a negative effect on the tacAI. I find it even more difficult to see how changes to movement orders that the AI doesn't use (I understand that they don't use Normal or Fast movement, for instance) would impact them in any fashion whatsoever.

Non game programmer type people generally "struggle" to understand stuff like this as a rule rather than the exception. Even with my nearly 20 years of working with programmers, on games specifically, still leaves me scratching my head sometimes. Therefore, non game programmers need to just accept what a game programmer tells them and move onto something else.

Could we put in the old style Hunt on its own without any other improvements? Yes, with some work it could be done. The AI would not need much coding in this regard either if we just had it not use the Command. Which is the basic problem. If we adjusted firing on the move to basically never hit then the AI would be at a HUGE disadvantage against even a semi-competent Human player. And that would be disastrous for the game as a whole.

Kludges (and this would qualify as one) often create as many problems as they solve. Yet they take away development and testing time from doing things that have a much clearer benefit to the game. Which is why we avoid kludges as much as possible.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The AI uses all of the types of movement orders. And a change to the old style Hunt command would *require* a TacAI change, since the TacAI handles the logic. You'd have to make the TacAI able to do it, for it to work.

heh... I focused my last comment only on the AI Player, but Phil is totally correct that the TacAI would need some work. How much work? I don't know, but based on CMx1 and CMx2 experience with Hunt and Move to Contact my guess is not a lot of initial coding time, but a TON of revisions through a long period of testing.

The problem with putting in a feature is there's no halfway to it. There's quite a few game features which we've put in over the years that were pulled because getting them beyond the basic functionality standpoint proved to be too much work for the benefit. At least at the time. Some of those features have eventually worked their way into the game later on when we have more time or complimentary features already working well.

Steve

[Mord]

So, Steve, what at this point in CMBN development are the priorities? What are you guys focused on as far as pushing the engine along, or fixing?

Mord.

[John Malcolm]

I think I *might* be part of the silent majority. I know CMBN is a great game. I owned and played all the CMx1 games. CMBN is by far the best... however I can see people's problems with stuff like tanks firing on the move. When less and less stuff is being abstracted it just seems weird. Allowing tanks to stop and fire on enemy armour, but to continue moving if a single driver from a destroyed jeep shows up seems reasonable.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The difference is nobody defending the "status quo" is actually defending it. I'm certainly not, and neither is Phil. We're explaining why it is what it is and why it won't be fixed right away. I also feel I have to, once again, explain the boundaries for criticism and debate because it's unfortunately necessary. I'm not emotional about it at all... I just have to remind people of the rules. I cut critics a lot of slack, but I can't let them run roughshod over the process. That would be to the detriment of everybody. If people don't like being reminded that they've stepped over a line, the easiest thing to do is not do it again.

Yet in this thread I am not really seeing the line being crossed.

Yet the negative response is as if I was carrying on like one of the more rabid participants in the now locked thread. Is the bar really that low nowadays? I hope not!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes, my feelings exactly. I thought my previous posts certainly didn't qualify as some sort of over the top rant but it appears I've been tarred with the same brush as others who participated in the previously locked thread. I mean...WTF?

Regards

KR

[Battlefront.com]

I think I *might* be part of the silent majority. I know CMBN is a great game. I owned and played all the CMx1 games. CMBN is by far the best... however I can see people's problems with stuff like tanks firing on the move. When less and less stuff is being abstracted it just seems weird.

Yes, this is one of the issues we've always had with CM. We get into a sort of "vicious cycle" sometimes where it is simply impractical to simulate everything to the same degree of detail all at once, so we have to start somewhere and keep pushing things along as we go. What we see now is that CM:BN abstracts so little compared to CMBO that this sort of stuff, which hardly anybody even mentioned for 7 years, suddenly becomes a hot button topic. To me this doesn't show how much "better" CMx1 was, but how much room there was for improvement.

Yet in this thread I am not really seeing the line being crossed.

Yet the negative response is as if I was carrying on like one of the more rabid participants in the now locked thread. Is the bar really that low nowadays? I hope not!

Now who is overreacting? One guy made one comment (which I thought was fairly obviously out of context) on the first page and there's been no sign of anything like that since. Certainly nothing I said was aimed at you. I don't see anything else in this thread, except for that one line, that was aimed at you either.

Yes, my feelings exactly. I thought my previous posts certainly didn't qualify as some sort of over the top rant but it appears I've been tarred with the same brush as others who participated in the previously locked thread. I mean...WTF?

See above. If I thought you opened up an over the top rant continuation from the previous over the top rant I had just locked up, the only post I'd have made here would be to admonish you (DIRECTLY) and announce that I was locking it up. Since I did not make such a post you can be at least assured that I don't think you ranted. Just in case that means something to you

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

So, Steve, what at this point in CMBN development are the priorities? What are you guys focused on as far as pushing the engine along, or fixing?

As stated for a while now, the #1 priority is various improvements to the UI. This is a wide ranging concept which does, ironically, include the topic we're talking about here.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But GaJ rather odd response was not the only one that appeared negative in tone.

Sublime and you had a 1-2 go at those being critical where you introduced sweeping statements in to this thread.

When I then post that I didn't feel appreciative of receiving last threads parting shots I get this as a direct reply:

... I also feel I have to, once again, explain the boundaries for criticism and debate because it's unfortunately necessary. I'm not emotional about it at all... I just have to remind people of the rules. I cut critics a lot of slack, but I can't let them run roughshod over the process. That would be to the detriment of everybody. If people don't like being reminded that they've stepped over a line, the easiest thing to do is not do it again.

That is not usually a reply inserted in a thread that goes swimmingly. If it is not as you now make clear a rebuke of people in this thread then it sure comes across as parting shots for the last thread in a new thread that would've been better off without it. Especially as you were the one with the lock and last word in the previous one in any case.

Anyway... I am happy to hear it is a mere unfortunate miscommunication.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As stated for a while now, the #1 priority is various improvements to the UI. This is a wide ranging concept which does, ironically, include the topic we're talking about here.

UI elements like, oh, let us pick something totally at random... cover armour arcs?

Hunt+Cover Armour Arc was pretty much the only way I moved AFVs around previously

[aka_tom_w]

UI elements like, oh, let us pick something totally at random... cover armour arcs?

Hunt+Cover Armour Arc was pretty much the only way I moved AFVs around previously

I hope so....

:-)

[aka_tom_w]

I hope everyone here will understand Steve is on top of this issue, Phil gets it and so does Steve, without compromising the NDA the beta testers have been ALL over it, but like every thing else it takes time, LOS OF TIME, and testing and Steve mentioned it's an issue and with new work and improvements on the entire UI it could/might/should be addressed in the a future release or patch.

Please trust me [ fanboy mode on] they get it, but the solution will not be fast or easy and a kluge or ANY FORM of kluge, (meaning quick and easy fix or faking it") is OUT OF THE QUESTION.

Please trust me Steve and Phil really get it and the solution is not easy, but they are working on behind the scenes..... FWIW, IMHO..etc.

[Thomm]

Perhaps they want to go straight to

"Hunt, do not stop for infantry targets"

and

"Hunt, stop for every thing you can kill"

kind of commands, i.e., more control than a "simple" Hunt.

Best regards,

Thomm

[slysniper]

it is amazing how many threads can get onto the same topic. It as if some people just cannot let something go.

Let see,, if whiny gets the most attention, then this issue would have been resolved long ago.

Making suggestions as to what might work, does get some attention from steve, but he has tried to explain many times why those suggestion made in the past do not really work in the present AI . but many keep suggesting the same old things.

If you are going to keep talking about this, you might as well try to come up with a new concept that might actually work at stimulating a possible approach to improving the game and how it operates.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

God forbid we talk about issues we feel that impact gameplay. No, this thread is so much better for having you call us whiners. That really helps things along.

For my part, I wanted to give my €0.02 but refrained from doing it in the previous thread because it was such a counter-productive atmosphere.

Thomm,

I hope they don't go the route of specific commands.

The flexibility of the CM system is briliant, imo. Some pretty clever stuff can be done by combining several order types to get great results and specific behaviour.

[sburke]

God forbid we talk about issues we feel that impact gameplay. No, this thread is so much better for having you call us whiners. That really helps things along.

For my part, I wanted to give my €0.02 but refrained from doing it in the previous thread because it was such a counter-productive atmosphere.

Agreed, respectful discourse goes both ways. Steve even responded to this thread with more detail on some of what they are trying to do with the UI that I think we should all appreciate.

[Mord]

As stated for a while now, the #1 priority is various improvements to the UI. This is a wide ranging concept which does, ironically, include the topic we're talking about here.

Steve

Ah, but I figured any UI stuff wouldn't come until the Bulge title. So, UI improvements are first order for CM:BN?

Mord.

[Sgt Joch]

Agreed, respectful discourse goes both ways. .

Agreed.

BFC has already said they want to fix and improve this area of the game. The problem, as always, is finding the time.

CMSF had much more problems 3 -4 months after release, but BFC kept at it and now, after 3 modules and countless patches, it is a great game.

BFC is not perfect (who among us is?), but at least they keep plugging away at their games, which is something you can't say about every developpers.

[Sublime]

Elmar it wasnt my intention, or Steve's from BFC to give a '1-2' on anyone in the thread. For one Steve and I are not nor have been in direct contact. Ever.

I was putting in my opinion on the issues we're discussing, and expressing my annoyance at how emotional and extreme a lot of these threads or posts get on issues in a video game. Issues I may add, that do not stop anyone from playing the game at all, that are more or less matters of opinion and things that more than likely can and will be fixed.

If anything, I guess I've just been getting irritated at the rash of posts where people 'threaten' to go back to CMx1, or go on about how the game is a steaming pile of dog poo. Even though they're still spending their hours on the forum for the said game.

I dont feel myself on any 'side' or 'group', or with a 'status quo'. Especially since being for or against said status quo doesnt affect me in anyway. I just address things on an individual basis. FWIW.