CM: Black Sea Strategy Discussion Thread

[Nefaro]

Isn't the poll by a customer?  I didn't think it was BFC who did it.  I its a customer trying to convince BFC to add features to the upgrade.

I guess so.  I stopped frequenting the place ages ago, so I have no idea what's going on over there.

This is far from the first time I've heard of the regular BF customers attempting to bribe them into addressing something.  Not sure if it ever worked.  I'd hope that such things were addressed at some point in normal development, without such odd offers.

In the end, I would expect BF to not bother paying much attention to it if they would be forced to expand in order to make more money. 

[Yskonyn]

Well we don't want to give the impression that the game doesn't work well, either.
The AI could be more intelligent or pro-active, but that is the case for so many games.
And we are solely talking about the TacAI here.
The strategic 'AI' is as clever as the author of the mission enables it to be.

So while its nice to have an (even more) advanced AI for the CMx2 games (the AI regularly kicks my add anyway as it is), we're not talking World in Flames here.
Let's keep it fair towards BFC. :)

[Zonso]

Yes, reading that poll and accompanying threads I am left thinking ignorance is bliss!  :) Like a few thousand dollars is somehow going to enable BFC to profoundly 'improve' the AI, which will in turn dramatically increase the marketability and then sales of the product. Typical internet wishful thinking.

I think to be fair it isn't like the CM AI is a slouch either. The TacAI is pretty impressive for the various units and the varying situations, doing a great job simulating realistic behavior. (Still room for improvement though in many more areas) The inclusion of triggers has really raised the bar of the strategic AI as created by the scenario designers imo.

Especially with Black Sea, the enemy conducts itself in a very convincing and believable manner. Fleshing that out, which BFC has already stated as one of their goals, will make it even better. There is no way I would want a return to the type of AI from the original CM. I think some have rose colored glasses when comparing. The SP experience is much, much better with CMx2.

[JudgeDredd]

I'm always having my butt handed to me (well, more often than not) by a middle of the road AI setting.

I have NO problems with the AI how it is.  :)

[Nefaro]

Well we don't want to give the impression that the game doesn't work well, either.
The AI could be more intelligent or pro-active, but that is the case for so many games.
And we are solely talking about the TacAI here.
The strategic 'AI' is as clever as the author of the mission enables it to be.

So while its nice to have an (even more) advanced AI for the CMx2 games (the AI regularly kicks my add anyway as it is), we're not talking World in Flames here.
Let's keep it fair towards BFC. :)

Oh they're still challenging games.  More so in the canned missions with programmed AI, of course. 

But I think the randomized skirmishes are an essential feature and I've seen the AI do some bonehead straight-at-you-willy-nilly moves in them, so those could definitely use some work (along with any TacAI tweaks of course).

IIRC, the random battle AI tactic is always the "Hey Diddle Diddle" right down the middle with little organization or timing.  I've been told that Skirm AI just a generic one that tells it to send everything straight at the victory point(s), and that seems to be the case to whatever extent.

[Tinkershuffle]

its called:
Kieme CMBS reworked horizons.rar  :)

Thanks Mike!

[Elvis]

IIRC, the random battle AI tactic is always the "Hey Diddle Diddle" right down the middle with little organization or timing.  I've been told that Skirm AI just a generic one that tells it to send everything straight at the victory point(s), and that seems to be the case to whatever extent.

No, the quick battle maps have AI plans designed (usually) by the map maker. And, most if not all, all QB maps shipped with the game have 3 different sets of AI orders for each side. Where you can see great success and great failure with this is the players force selection. The old CMx1 was pretty much a zombie walk to the VLs, making playing defense not very interesting. That said, I only rarely play QBs for fun...... And that goes back to CMx1. But that's just me. :)

I scanned through the post you linked to before reading the rest of this thread looking for the BFC comment. As others have already pointed out, Battlefront hasn't chimed in. That said, when BFC talks about "costs", they almost always refer to time costs of programmers, as opposed to actual dollars being spent. With the possible exception of talks about Upgrades, which ultimately go back to programmer time as well. So being "bribed" into doing something because their public is willing to pay them more to spend their time working on one thing rather than another, doesn't sound like their style.

Isn't the poll by a customer?  I didn't think it was BFC who did it.  I its a customer trying to convince BFC to add features to the upgrade.

One huge feature not in the game is any real engineering capability.  They actually have engineering vehicles, but there are just window dressing.  No fast scrapes for tanks.  No quick foxholes.  No real breaching of obstacles.  Adding mineclearing vehicles is step in that direction, but not very far.

LOS is still wonky through vehicles. No friendly fire or fire lanes.  Night illumination capability is still not very capable and its a hugely important part of even modern combat.  Tank gun depression and elevation is still a little laughable, considering the agonizing detail in other parts of the game.

I know there are reasons for all of these and those reasons are more than acceptable to me.  So there is plenty of stuff to work on and I am sure my list is only a small part of the list BFC has for themselves.

How bout WeGo TCP with playback? There is no other feature that I want more than that (although I've been told so many times that, if it ever happens, it ain't gonna be any time soon, that I've stopped asking. :) )

[Nefaro]

So the randomly created skirmish battles have more than one AI "plan"? 

If so, I still don't think even the stock random battle AI plans knew how to use some troop types very well.  And the 'rush straight at VP' effect seemed to be the order of the day in the last couple I tried with randomly generated missions on CMBN+C and CMSF.

[JudgeDredd]

I should point out, whilst I'm thumbing up the AI that I do not play any mode other than the built in scenarios and campaigns.

I have no idea what user generated or game generated maps and modes are like from an AI perspective.

[RyanE]

You can talk up the AI in QBs all you want, but it is very weak.  It is as much troop selection as anything.  How about a company of TOW teams that have to cross an entire map and fight it out with an airborne platoon.  Or the 15 Humvees battling it out with some T-90s.

They have been trying to fix that literally for years and yet still seems not a lot different than CMSF.  Quality of the QB maps has improved significantly though.

[jomni]

The simple AI scripting method is alright for those campaign and stand alone missions but at the hands of a skilled designer. And most of the time you are the attacker.

But it does not work well in QB.  Despite the QB having some AI orders already in the map.  Clearly there needs to be conditions, triggers and stuff.

[WallysWorld]

For those of us who don't have Black Sea yet, the demo has been released: http://www.battlefront.com/

[Cyrano]

This game plays SP?  Heavens, why?  Doug'll be more than happy to drive his tanks right over you :).

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[panzerde]

^ this is true.  :)

[undercovergeek]

quick question for those who know and i that dont

advancing to contact - i realise now why ive never played a mechanised force in CM - i dont know how to advance to contact in them!

When do you get out? be it strykers, bdms, bradleys, how far do you go forward before thinking, 'wed better get out in case we get blown up', and then use the vehicle as infantry back up

is it on contact (which seems a bit late to me), or some arbitrary point you decide, or is it a cleverly sought spot out of LOS and then send recon out from there?