CM Red Thunder page is up

[Michael Dorosh]

I am one of those tactically challenged gamers who finds all AI's tough. In CM:RT, in QB's, I have had the AI dump timely artillery barrages on me, use smoke to screen an assault and send units around through woods to flank an anti-tank gun. I have read that others find the AI less than stellar but for me it is a challenge. It is better on defense than attack though.

The whole point of the game is to be challenged, so I wouldn't be hard on yourself. The different levels of fog of war are supposed to increase the difficulty/realism in this respect also. If it wasn't difficult, there would be no point.

I don't know that the AI is particularly good or if those "well-timed" barrages are simply coincidences or even the AI 'cheating' - scenario/map designers do have the option of designating "support targets" for the AI also, basically telling the artillery where and how to shoot. So it may be a case of the QB/scenario designer lending a hand to the AI. See pp. 103-104 of the engine manual.

[Rayfer]

MD...the last thing I want to do is to look under the hood and see what makes any game tick, learn its tricks and design features, triggers, etc.  I understand and respect that others do and if it enriches their gaming experience then go for it. It's like the first Matrix movie, do I want to take the red or the blue pill? I don't want to know that the timely artillery barrage happened because of a cheat or specific trigger.  I would rather play within the illusion and immersion of the unfolding battle.

[z1812]

MD...the last thing I want to do is to look under the hood and see what makes any game tick, learn its tricks and design features, triggers, etc.  I understand and respect that others do and if it enriches their gaming experience then go for it. It's like the first Matrix movie, do I want to take the red or the blue pill? I don't want to know that the timely artillery barrage happened because of a cheat or specific trigger.  I would rather play within the illusion and immersion of the unfolding battle.

Exactly!

[Michael Dorosh]

MD...the last thing I want to do is to look under the hood and see what makes any game tick, learn its tricks and design features, triggers, etc.  I understand and respect that others do and if it enriches their gaming experience then go for it. It's like the first Matrix movie, do I want to take the red or the blue pill? I don't want to know that the timely artillery barrage happened because of a cheat or specific trigger.  I would rather play within the illusion and immersion of the unfolding battle.

I was directing that remark at Elvis, specifically his comments regarding the AI plans on the QB maps. I suspect he's never looked at them. I have.

I would never argue that willing suspension of disbelief is not an essential element in the enjoyment of entertainment. I don't open scenarios in the editor either - what is the point in cheating in order to win? - but those that continue to propose that the AI is capable of sentience are not being honest, or frankly, fair, since they may be heightening expectations in those not so willing to suspend disbelief. There are many different kinds of game players; those "experiential" players are more willing to forgive shortcomings in the A.I., whereas those who play for the puzzle aspects or pure mathematical challenges will see through them much more quickly.

[Rayfer]

MD...the last thing I want to do is to look under the hood and see what makes any game tick, learn its tricks and design features, triggers, etc.  I understand and respect that others do and if it enriches their gaming experience then go for it. It's like the first Matrix movie, do I want to take the red or the blue pill? I don't want to know that the timely artillery barrage happened because of a cheat or specific trigger.  I would rather play within the illusion and immersion of the unfolding battle.

I was directing that remark at Elvis, specifically his comments regarding the AI plans on the QB maps. I suspect he's never looked at them. I have.

I would never argue that willing suspension of disbelief is not an essential element in the enjoyment of entertainment. I don't open scenarios in the editor either - what is the point in cheating in order to win? - but those that continue to propose that the AI is capable of sentience are not being honest, or frankly, fair, since they may be heightening expectations in those not so willing to suspend disbelief. There are many different kinds of game players; those "experiential" players are more willing to forgive shortcomings in the A.I., whereas those who play for the puzzle aspects or pure mathematical challenges will see through them much more quickly.

Couldn't agree more! I like your expression...'experiential' players.  That's me.

[Michael Dorosh]

MD...the last thing I want to do is to look under the hood and see what makes any game tick, learn its tricks and design features, triggers, etc.  I understand and respect that others do and if it enriches their gaming experience then go for it. It's like the first Matrix movie, do I want to take the red or the blue pill? I don't want to know that the timely artillery barrage happened because of a cheat or specific trigger.  I would rather play within the illusion and immersion of the unfolding battle.

I was directing that remark at Elvis, specifically his comments regarding the AI plans on the QB maps. I suspect he's never looked at them. I have.

I would never argue that willing suspension of disbelief is not an essential element in the enjoyment of entertainment. I don't open scenarios in the editor either - what is the point in cheating in order to win? - but those that continue to propose that the AI is capable of sentience are not being honest, or frankly, fair, since they may be heightening expectations in those not so willing to suspend disbelief. There are many different kinds of game players; those "experiential" players are more willing to forgive shortcomings in the A.I., whereas those who play for the puzzle aspects or pure mathematical challenges will see through them much more quickly.

Couldn't agree more! I like your expression...'experiential' players.  That's me.

I think you may be in the majority, as far as those players who are best able to get the most value from CM. Which is not a surprise; the developers stated before the release of the new game engine in 2007 that they wanted a more 'realistic' environment for the player. That means limited access to information (no more "firepower ratings" as in CMX1, no more miniature view showing the specific terrain tile your troops occupy (and accompanying defensive modifier) etc.), ironically hand in hand with greater fidelity in modelling of that same firepower, cover, etc. At the same time you have increased 3-D modelling, 1:1 representation, etc. It's an interesting dichotomy where you have more visual information but less actual data to make decisions with. Of course, the strength of the game is that it can still appeal to the broad variety of play styles even if the ways in which it is suited to them varies. An analyzer is not likely to prefer real-time, for example, which is why the continued inclusion of WEGO is fortunate.

[Elvis]

Some have multiple AI plans, i.e. they rush straight at you but from different directions and at different times.  ;)

As Rayfer pints out....that isn't true.

You should actually open up some of the QB maps in the editor sometime. If you knew how they worked, you might be inclined to change your answer.

You're probably right. I have no clue about how to even look for the AI orders.

That said, all AI have the enemy advancing or "rushing forward" in one way or another. The difference is what the tactical AI does once things are in motion. That combination is what can give you a fun QB. In the old game, the AI was more autonomous but was a one trick pony making playing a QB on defense worthless,  in my opinion. Now there can be, what, 16 AI plans. A well make map with good AI plans can give you lots of meaningful replay.

Of course nothing beats playing a human. That's where the real fun is.

[Michael Dorosh]

You're probably right. I have no clue about how to even look for the AI orders.

That said, all AI have the enemy advancing or "rushing forward" in one way or another. The difference is what the tactical AI does once things are in motion. That combination is what can give you a fun QB. In the old game, the AI was more autonomous but was a one trick pony making playing a QB on defense worthless,  in my opinion. Now there can be, what, 16 AI plans. A well make map with good AI plans can give you lots of meaningful replay.

Well, you'd be astonished at what you found in the editor with regards to the QB maps if you did, as the ones I've opened up have a single AI plan that simply rush forward at the objective. This is not a criticism, just a statement of what I have observed. With the fog of war settings and terrain in CM:RT, it serves the purpose, especially for those like Rayfer (or myself) that aren't actively trying to "figure out" the AI but simply playing to have fun.

You may be confused about how the AI works, as 16 is not the number of AI plans. You can have 16 groups as part of each plan but 5 is still the maximum number of plans. But that is only if someone decides to create that many plans. The computer doesn't have the capacity to create or modify them, they have to be crafted by a human. I have not seen a QB AI that utilizes 16 groups as that would be completely unwieldy. The groups are there to finetune complicated AI plans for the scenarios. With random picks (or even human picks), you simply couldn't create a generic AI plan utilizing 16 different groups that would make any kind of sense utilizing that many groups. It would be like saying your restaurant has soup with 16 spices in it, and then throwing 16 spices at random into a bowl and serving it. The number 16 might impress people, but if you actually did it, the end result would just be a mish-mash.

The large and complicated scenarios do use that many groups/plans to good effect, but creating and testing them is a long and complicated process.

For example, in a designed scenario, the designer might assign all the headquarters groups to Group 1, heavy weapons to Group 2, and the different rifle platoons of a company to Groups 3, 4 and 5. To orchestrate a fall-back defence, he would then use triggers and give different orders to the different groups at different times to coordinate this, ensuring that the heavy weapons were sited in appropriate terrain and the platoons covered each other as they pulled back. He could try and build a similar plan on a QB map, but because the computer simply splits the forces at random into the different groups, there would be no way to ensure that the support weapons went in the support weapons group, etc.

[Nefaro]

That was what I had originally referred to - the QB battles using a single rush straight at the objective. 

I suppose it would come down to the individual unit AI routines, when contact is made, whether the AI in QBs can be challenging.  Or whether you need to give it an extra force advantage along with choosing sensible units for both sides?  Perhaps it can get fancy and try to flank with individual AI routines as opposed to the overall AI rush?  Such questions are the reason I brought it up.

I haven't played since CMBN/Commonwealth and they may have tweaked them some more in the updated version(s) since.  I dunno.  The crafted scenarios were obviously challenging but I was disappointed with the QBs in CMBN and CMSF for more than one reason. 

[RyanE]

There is a world of difference between CMBN and CMSF QBs.  CMSF QBs I still consider broken.  CMBN at least got you into the realm of playable on most settings.  CMSF only allowed random selection of OOBs for both sides and it was and has been a mess.

[Skoop]

So I finally delved into RT after purchasing on release and fired up the first battle of the German campaign.  Now seeing that I was going to be up against t34 85s with my glass pz4s I was a bit nervous. 

Here's what I took away from the engagement, he who spots first and shoots first wins.  The t34 though superior in design has only 4 crewman and the gunner acts as the commander and has to duck into the turret each time the gun fires.  The German crews are 5 men with a dedicated commander, that extra set of eyes is a huge asset and more than makes up for the pz4 being a glass tank.  I was able to spot and shoot first every time and just worked over the t34s, I feel like I had a tougher time against shermans.

[Redwolf]

So I finally delved into RT after purchasing on release and fired up the first battle of the German campaign.  Now seeing that I was going to be up against t34 85s with my glass pz4s I was a bit nervous. 

Here's what I took away from the engagement, he who spots first and shoots first wins.  The t34 though superior in design has only 4 crewman and the gunner acts as the commander and has to duck into the turret each time the gun fires.  The German crews are 5 men with a dedicated commander, that extra set of eyes is a huge asset and more than makes up for the pz4 being a glass tank.  I was able to spot and shoot first every time and just worked over the t34s, I feel like I had a tougher time against shermans.

Do you find that that still works correctly when one side was moving and one side was standing?

[RyanE]

Doesn't the T-34-85 have a three-man turret?

[Tuna]

Doesn't the T-34-85 have a three-man turret?

Correct

[Skoop]

Your right the 85mm version does have 5 guys, now i'm baffled at how easy it was to spot and shoot first every time even at 1000 meters.  I bet the t34s were green which was lead to the lag in spotting.  I'll have to open the campaign with scenario organizer to confirm that.