Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/15/2010 11:26:20 PM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		You guys are playing other projects when the last 3 projects are incomplete?
Now that's playing games.
Whats even funnier is the map was codded right the 1st time around and someone decided to change it to the point where now the player can't do anything about it.

I'm done reporting your failures to you and for you.Go do it yourself.


Oh that's right...............
You can't.You have better things to do.

Well,
At least the next consumer hopes it's better.




< Message edited by Platoon_Michael -- 8/15/2010 11:29:25 PM >

(in reply to Neil N)
Post #: 121
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 12:33:21 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi guys,

There have actually been a huge number of improvements from the original CC series to the present, including the area of AI. With that said, we made more AI improvements in the first update which have been well received so far and we're completely overhauling pathing for the second update (basically rewriting it instead of applying fixes on top of it) for the first time since the original series. We are as interested in a "better CC" as all of you, but I'm surprised by comments that things are the same as they have always been. I think you really have to look past a lot of positive changes to believe that.

Regards,

- Erik


We have noticed improvements, improvements in graphics, improvements in fire support, improvements in night fighting, all kinds of improvements. Ive even noticed improvements in the AI, it does engage in some more interesting tactics, it does use smoke more, and pathing has been improved.

But you have NOT addressed the fundamental problem in which the AI tends to mill about aimlessly. You have NOT addressed the fundamental problem in which the AI tends to just leave troops sitting hidden somewhere doing nothing (especially with AT guns), when the AI is supposed to be attacking. You have NOT addressed the fundamental problem in which the AI sometimes refuses to attack even when it has overwhelming strength and should be attacking. You have NOT addressed the problem in which the AI decides to attack a location, and then gets slaughtered, and keeps attacking taking outrageously high casualties. None of those problems are difficult to fix, but they do take some creativity and a willingness to do so.

The fact of the matter is I can mod the game to give the AI 150 soldiers (unfortunately you refuse to allow me to add more squads, which is another problem that should be fixed, because limiting us to 15 squads is unreasonable) -- and yet, despite being grossly outnumbered, and despite giving the AI extra armor bonuses, and extra weapons, and extra everything... I can still destroy the AI, because it fails to use all of its troops, it fails sometimes to attack, and when it does attack it fails to take into account its casualties and consider attacking at some other location where I must presumably be weaker.

Its not genuinely 'AI' until the computer decides to do something, and then changes its mind based on the fact that I've got two machine guns in that building, and I'm slaughtering everything coming down the street.


Talk about lousy AI, I've been playing Warhammer 40K DOW I series lately. Basically the AI simply attacks relentlessly, runs right straight into an inferno of guns and missles and doesn't seem to care how badly its troops get mauled. You can use the same tricks to destroy the AI base over and over and over again. It never learns anything from past mistakes. Changing the difficulty settings seems to simply change how easy or difficult it is to kill the AI's soldiers and how many of them it sends at you at a time and little more. But the game is fun until it gets boring. WH40K is a big commercial release but it doesn't have anything I would call "intelligence". Basically it just spams units and sends them headlong at your base. That's the only tactic it knows and once you figure out how to overcome that one tactic you basically will never lose again. The same thing is true of the whole Command & Conquer series and just about every other RTS series out there. The number of variables in your basic big commercial RTS game is relatively low compared to real life.

Why is it that CC's AI is "broken" when WH40K apparently isn't? Why is it that we expect CC to be so much more complex and intricate than a game put out by a HUGE commercial gaming company like THQ? If THQ can't figure out how to come up with realistic AI, then how do we expect Matrix to? Granted I want to see improvements also but maybe we should be a little more realistic in our expectations? Yes I would like to see an AI which mimicks reality as closely as possible.

Maybe Matrix should simply put out games like Command & Conquer or Wahammer and stop trying to do simulations. It would be a lot easier, a lot more profitable and there would be less criticism.

_____________________________


(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 122
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 12:49:22 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		Furthermore it seems that Matrix can't win. When the AI attacks people complain that it just sends troops to the slaughter. When it doesn't attack people complain that it isn't attacking.

_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 123
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 1:57:36 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		People will recall that for Deep Blue to defeat a human at chess, deep Blue did not use any strategy nor tactics.

Rather, there are 32 pieces on the board and 64 squares.

Wherever the pieces happen to be on the board, there is always the perfect move.

The ere a zillion possible positions the pieces could occupy and always the perfect move.

Each combination and it’s perfect move was recorded in memory. Deep Blue simply accessed it’s memory.

This is not possible for Close Combat.

In theory the AI player might start a game with 15 units on the map. Let it begin with 30 units without the human player knowing.

This would make a AI player as tough as a human player if not as good as an human player.

-





(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 124
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 4:32:56 AM   
Peterk1

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline 		The chess analogy as you presented it is not entirely correct here.
It didn't simply access it's memory. It's able to evaluate the value of each position due to a scoring algorithm programmed by experts. There is no "perfect move". There are moves with higher scores than others.

You can do the same thing in CC or any other wargame if you are inclined to. Most people are not inclined to do chess-like thinking in non-chess games because it's challenging.

But for CC....

Computer guys in open ground + human has unsupressed machine gun + lots of computer side's bodies in front of machine gun = really, really bad score. Recommendation: get guys to cover, start firing on MG.


Computer guys in cover + Computer  guys shooting at enemy positions + human guys are slowly breaking = good score. Recommendation: wait until break and then charge.

Why not?

In CC's defense, the AI is actually smarter here than in the original CMs, I find. CM didn't know how to use a mortar or machine gun in attack, didn't know how to find positions for those units in attack. Setups were perhaps better in CM but I haven't played it for a long while, so I could be wrong about that.


< Message edited by Peterk1 -- 8/16/2010 6:32:15 AM >

(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 125
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 12:05:04 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

The chess analogy as you presented it is not entirely correct here.
It didn't simply access it's memory. It's able to evaluate the value of each position due to a scoring algorithm programmed by experts. There is no "perfect move". There are moves with higher scores than others.

You can do the same thing in CC or any other wargame if you are inclined to. Most people are not inclined to do chess-like thinking in non-chess games because it's challenging.

But for CC....

Computer guys in open ground + human has unsupressed machine gun + lots of computer side's bodies in front of machine gun = really, really bad score. Recommendation: get guys to cover, start firing on MG.


Computer guys in cover + Computer  guys shooting at enemy positions + human guys are slowly breaking = good score. Recommendation: wait until break and then charge.

Why not?

In CC's defense, the AI is actually smarter here than in the original CMs, I find. CM didn't know how to use a mortar or machine gun in attack, didn't know how to find positions for those units in attack. Setups were perhaps better in CM but I haven't played it for a long while, so I could be wrong about that.



I don't know how realistic using a chess program to mimick all the confusion on a real battlefield would work. In reality commanders make mistakes as much as they make brilliant moves. If I were playing against an opponent who never made a mistake and made its decisions in real time a million times faster than I could make my decisions I don't think I would call that a "simulation" either. Ultimately CC is a simulation and it needs to act like a human, not a computer.

That does bring up an interesting military possibility though. If IRL a commander could simply program a computer to make his decisions instantly for him and never make a mistake based upon a given situation, think of what war in the future may be like? Just a side note...

_____________________________


(in reply to Peterk1)
Post #: 126
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 1:18:45 PM   
Peterk1

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline 		I don't think even chess programs claim to find the perfect moves. But with the system that most of them use, they do have a great ability to filter out all of the patently bad moves. In most chess positions, most of the moves you =can= make are bad or don't do anything for you.

It would be great if CC could start doing doing that. I've played about 60-70 games of The Longest Day in the past few weeks and the main quibbles with the AI that I have found are:

1. Not setting up in cover at the beginning of a game. Even if you're planning on rushing a position, don't most players always set up in cover, just in case the opponent's set up is not what one hopes????

2. Keeping too many units out of play at the back at the beginning of a game. Might make sense for a long game but with 15 minute timers, pretty much every unit has to to put to use.

3. Starting off many games with a suicide banzai rush which almost never succeed and which almost always give me an easy win due to morale breakdown.
This one reminds me of a little 6 year old who starts off every chess game going for the scholar's mate. It's going to work maybe one game in a thousand. This is a "bad move" which should be removed from the AI's repertiore.

4. Not appearing to ever use the basic tactic of suppressing a target location with many units before moving in to take the location.

Whether some chess-like algorithm is used to score strategies or not, you should still have some basic way for the computer to decide whether something it is about to try is good or not. And definitely it should have most of the common tactics used by human players in its repertoire. 




(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 127
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 1:26:50 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

3. Starting off many games with a suicide banzai rush which almost never succeed and which almost always give me an easy win due to morale breakdown.
This one reminds me of a little 6 year old who starts off every chess game going for the scholar's mate. It's going to work maybe one game in a thousand. This is a "bad move" which should be removed from the AI's repertiore.



Sometimes suicide banzai rushes work. See my AAR in the AAR forum. Basically it is the ONLY way to take some of the bridges in the game intact BEFORE they are blown. Part of the problem seems to be that the AI doesn't put all its weight into the attack. It will rush two or three teams at once and you simply mow them down. If it put ALL its units into the attack that might work better.

EDIT: BTW morale seems to be modeled very well in the game. Whenever I did a banzai rush I had to constantly keep ordering my soldiers to move toward the objective. The soldiers would break down and retreat when the opposing fire was too heavy. I have to say kudos to the makers of CC for modeling morale in the game. It does appear to make it VERY realistic.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 8/16/2010 1:34:39 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Peterk1)
Post #: 128
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 1:59:25 PM   
7A_Woulf

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
EDIT: BTW morale seems to be modeled very well in the game. Whenever I did a banzai rush I had to constantly keep ordering my soldiers to move toward the objective. The soldiers would break down and retreat when the opposing fire was too heavy. I have to say kudos to the makers of CC for modeling morale in the game. It does appear to make it VERY realistic.


Second that!

Some of my general observations on the game after the patch:

1) With a few exceptions, the tactical AI is more likely to act aggressive if they already have 'combat-contact', i.e. if you play a pure defensive battle it's more likely that you have to sit and wait for 15-20 mins.

2) The strategic AI is generally more aggressive, sadly sometimes to a point where it's pure madness to attack and I personally would retreat/wait and 'rest' that BG. (Guess it's hard to find a nice balance on this behaviour?)

3) AI controlled KG Jungwirth at Dinther + attack on Veghel = slaughter! Sadly, it's a duck-shoot when they attack. Due to their deployment zone in this case all I have to do is deploy a L-shaped defence south of the canal and west of the bridge, then I can let loose and win the battle in 4-5 mins. (Once I used the mortar barrage, but that felt like cheating! )

4) In general I like the mechanism that makes elements of disbanded BG's joining other friendly BG's of the same parent unit, but in my recent GC it has created some strange effects:
-The survivors of 107th PZ. Brigade and KG Rink have managed to cross the Vilhelmina Canal, the rivers Dommel and Aa before joining KG Jungwirth, all without controlling bridges and while 'retreating' from battles where their BG's have been disbanded!

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 129
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 3:09:01 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

You guys are playing other projects when the last 3 projects are incomplete?
Now that's playing games.
Whats even funnier is the map was codded right the 1st time around and someone decided to change it to the point where now the player can't do anything about it.

I'm done reporting your failures to you and for you.Go do it yourself.


Oh that's right...............
You can't.You have better things to do.

Well,
At least the next consumer hopes it's better.



Actually you didn't take Neil's comments how he'd meant them. His comments were in reference to WaR. It would've been more accurate to his meaning if he'd said: "Although testing of WaR continues in anticipation of it's next update the main testing focus is on LSA at the moment so we can get the update out the door and into customers hands as soon as possible. If you happen to find any bugs or areas you see as improvements on WaR or any other CC build to please file a bug report through the Matrix bug reporting system as that will be the most sure way something doesn't get overlooked when we make the next update for WaR or TLD." If you carefully look at what he'd said that is what he'd intended.

Rest assured we're not going to take on any new projects without addressing any reported issues on WaR, TLD and LSA first. You can best help realize your desires for WaR by reporting anything you feel needs to be looked at. We'll be glad to take a look at it for the next WaR update.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 8/16/2010 3:10:10 PM >

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 130
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 4:23:45 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		I'll echo what Jim said. Please give us a little benefit of the doubt folks.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 131
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 9:07:12 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

4) In general I like the mechanism that makes elements of disbanded BG's joining other friendly BG's of the same parent unit, but in my recent GC it has created some strange effects:
-The survivors of 107th PZ. Brigade and KG Rink have managed to cross the Vilhelmina Canal, the rivers Dommel and Aa before joining KG Jungwirth, all without controlling bridges and while 'retreating' from battles where their BG's have been disbanded!


that's being looked at as it seems it masy be to your advantage to have you BG disbanded under certain circumstances.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 132
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/16/2010 9:39:23 PM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		It's hard for me to have any patience with you guys because.......

1) I'm more than willing to bet you guys don't look at anything when testing,other than stuff that would crash the game.And the severly MASSIVE graphic issues that even Stevie Wonder could find.
I have found so many errors with WAR it isn't even funny anymore,and god knows what else I will find.

2) Butgenbach:Have you guys even looked at the elevation on that map,and the lack of shading? (The most extreme error I can point out)
and yet you will look into the littlest comments that xe5 has pointed out for LSA
(no mean intentions but come on, WAR has been out for 3 years and no one goes back and says whoa this isn't right?)

3) I'm more than willing to bet you guys are 2 to 3 patch's ahead of us who are actually playing just by viewing your posts.

4) Martelange: View #3 (you guys aren't even on the same page when it comes to maps,as pointed out since 2008)


Bug report?
That's a new one.
Why don't you show me the bug report for WAR since it's release by the beta testers?
This way I can show you who to fire as you still don't seem to be able to figure that out after 3 years of testing and a free $50 game.
And if you your not, and your going to stay with the tried and true of using customers to find errors why not give them some sort or kick-back?








(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 133
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 12:11:30 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Please do report any errors you find that's the best way to ensure they get taken care of. We look at any and all issues that are reported. Massive graphics errors? Please illustrate them in the WaR forums. We have not seen any graphics errors. Also please illustrate the problems you are perceiving with the Butgengach map there as well. I just looked and don't see any reports about graphical errors or anything about Butgenbach. If I'm missing your posts please post a link. Same for the issues you're referencing on Martelange.

There has been testing on WaR since the release of the last patch of 9 weeks ago as a continued effort to continually improve the releases we've made available. It's not reasonable to think any program is ever going to be perfect. Even with the massive resources of a company like Microsoft it's still not possible for them to release an OS that's anywhere near perfect even after years of polishing. Not saying it's an excuse to give up or not try to release a perfect build. We do the absolute best we can. The point being that even with our best effort there are bound to be issues that get past us and as customers you can benefit your investment by reporting any issues that did get past us so we can take care of them as we've promised to do.

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 134
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 12:19:38 AM   
TheReal_Pak40

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Michael. My patience is just about gone. I've bought every original CC game and two of the re-releases. NOTHING has been improved in the tactical engine since CC2:ABTF:

TacAI: just as stupid as it always was. Blindly sends it's troops to straight to the nearest VL only to be slaughtered.

Deployment AI: It's the exact same as it always was - HORRIBLE. AI always deploys around VLs with no consideration to cover or fields of fire.

Vehicle Pathing: WORSE than in CC2. I'm not just talking about the "can't go there" remarks, I mean the actual path that the vehicle takes once given a move order. Tanks on a road are given an order to move 40 meters straight up said road, but the driver decides that a scenic ride over a wall and through the woods is the path of least resistance. Honestly, Miss Daisy could drive better than that.

Instant Artillery: Wow, offboard artillery falls so quickly that there isn't enough time to realistically allow for the flight of the round, let alone the whole process of communication. And it's always perfectly accurate.

Instant On Board Mortars: The main reason why AT guns don't last more than one or two rounds after opening up. Mortar rounds land 2-3 seconds after the fire order is placed. The is completely unrealistic. The flight path of a mortar round takes at least 10 seconds alone, not to mention the whole process of adjusting the mortar to get the correct direction and distance.

LSA MGs: As if MGs in CC weren't powerful enough. I kind of liked it better when a stone wall could actually stop a MG42 bullet.

With exception of the last one, these are all legitimate complaints from your consumers for the past several re-releases and the original Atomic releases. However, like Atomic, Matrix has solely focused on re-releasing new games with new maps and not actually fixing their product. The only thing that has improved is the strategic campaign engine. This a damned shame since Close Combat's primary focus is, after all, about close combat.

Honestly, should I have any more patience after ten releases of Close Combat?



(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 135
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 12:35:38 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Have you tried the first update Pak40? There are quite a few customers who would disagree with your assessment of the AI. We're working on vehicle pathing and an update will be out soon. We want to make sure it's properly put through it's paces before releasing it so we won't be rushed into making it public before it's time. Continue to be patient.

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)
Post #: 136
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 12:52:25 AM   
e_barkmann


Posts: 1307
Joined: 4/18/2000
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline 		Just to voice another opinion here, I have bought all CC's including the CoI and WaR Matrix releases but was not sufficiently convinced that things had improved enough in the single player tactical game to purchase TLD and LSA. 

My main gripes are uninspired AI and 'infantry survivability' (or lack of it!)

I look forward to seeing feedback on the next LSA patch and am crossing my fingers it's going to be positive.

cheers Chris


_____________________________

Scourge of War multiplayer group

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/sowwaterloo

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 137
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 1:08:28 AM   
Dundradal


Posts: 753
Joined: 6/9/2007
Status: offline 		The AI is improved in the first patch. It's definitely an improvement over the release version.

I'm hoping the path finding in the second patch will be an improvement.

I'm with Chris. I've got my fingers crossed we'll get some good improvements.

_____________________________

"To you, we are deeply grateful, and release what little hold we might, as Durandal, have had on your soul.
Go."
- Final Terminal Message Marathon Infinity

(in reply to e_barkmann)
Post #: 138
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 1:42:46 AM   
Peterk1

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Sometimes suicide banzai rushes work. See my AAR in the AAR forum. Basically it is the ONLY way to take some of the bridges in the game intact BEFORE they are blown. Part of the problem seems to be that the AI doesn't put all its weight into the attack. It will rush two or three teams at once and you simply mow them down. If it put ALL its units into the attack that might work better.


Hi Gary,

But an AI should not do something frequently just because it is the thing to do in some very special situations (ie. something has to be done very quickly). A chess player will sacrifice a queen when it sees that it can win the game by doing it. But it's not going to sacrifice a queen just because it MIGHT be able to win. In your case, the "score" of the catching the bridge intact in the next few minutes would outweigh the loss of some "pieces" so it makes sense to take risks. Or in The Longest Day, maybe it makes sense for the first wave on the beaches to push hard for an exit fast. But it's another special case.

I don't think the rushes make sense in 99.9% of the cases. Maybe to model Japansese or Russian charges...but even then the CC AI is way more suicidal than even the most hardened Russian commissar would approve of. Most of the time, from what I've seen, the AI would do better by playing a more patient game. A campaign/map defender should only start attacking seriously once it has the advantage or its position in the game is lost...it should not attack itself into oblivion as a normal case.

Just a couple of ideas to bump up the percentage of satisfying match-ups against the AI which wouldn't require any super-sophisticated evaluation routines:

The AI could cheat a bit to check whether a charge on a flag is likely to work before the game starts just by checking the set-ups. Something like...

AI has 20 men heading towards position covered by 15 rifles and an MG in buildings, and two mortars waiting....UMMMM....probably not going to work. Don't do it. 30 versus 5 rifles and one mortar? That might work. Go for it. Some little rules of thumb could be used to cancel out the massacres before they even start. Yes, the AI would then be cheating, but if it results in a more satisfying game for the player, I would say go for it.

How about the AI doing it's set-up AFTER it sees the player's setup? Or at least just shifting a few units around to better counter what the player has indicated he intends to do via its setup? I have no idea if it's already doing that, but my gut feeling is no.





(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 139
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 2:13:07 AM   
mooxe


Posts: 314
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
There are quite a few customers who would disagree with your assessment of the AI.


Those quite a few customers voiced their satisfaction within 48hrs of downloading the patch and we havent heard much since. I suppose they wanted things to be better so badly that when they spotted the AI doing something smart, that instantly meant it was better. Theres no way the changes that were implemented were tested throughout all the different BG commanders attributes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
We're working on vehicle pathing and an update will be out soon. We want to make sure it's properly put through it's paces before releasing it so we won't be rushed into making it public before it's time.


...does this mean another beta patch for us to test? haha..

_____________________________

Close Combat Series

CCS on Youtube

Join Discord for tech support and online games.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 140
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 2:27:51 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		The thing I hated about the CC2 AI was that you were always left with the impression it always knew exactly where your PIATs were and it would send it's panthers and a soldier banzai charge against them. Once they were wiped out it was game over and systematic hunting of the rest of your men. It would make a bee-line right for each location your men were on ambush regardless of how good the cover was. An artificial, artificial intelligence. They made a great effort and there were always moments of brilliance but it had it's shortcomings.

If I had to speculate, not specifically in reference to CC but any AI, (warning very uneducated-in-logic-based-systems and knowing-what's-possible opinion follows) I don't think it'll ever be possible to build an AI that gives the same kind of fight a human player gives. At the very least we're still decades away from computing power and algorithms that can do it on par with a human... reliably... every time in a fully transparent way that there's no possible way to discern it from a real human player. And when I say "same kind of fight a human player gives" I mean genuine risk and speculation based decision making with having relatively little information about what to expect of the environment in which those decisions are being made. On a level playing field with the human player has.

Maybe I'm off my rocker and it's more possible than I think but I just don't know how you can get something that doesn't have a soul or self-awareness to simulate that it does have those things without a crapload of computing power and years and years to write the code. I'd love to be proven wrong.

(in reply to Peterk1)
Post #: 141
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 2:55:06 AM   
TheReal_Pak40

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Have you tried the first update Pak40? There are quite a few customers who would disagree with your assessment of the AI. We're working on vehicle pathing and an update will be out soon. We want to make sure it's properly put through it's paces before releasing it so we won't be rushed into making it public before it's time. Continue to be patient.


Yes, I had to restart my campaign because I was kicking the Strat AI so badly before the patch came out. And thankfully the Strat AI effectively attacked me the second go around. However, the TacAI was still quite predictable. I agree with other posters that the TacAI is more agressive, it will attack when it's supposed to, however, being more aggressive is fruitless if you send infantry units out in the open in pointless banzai waves.

I've also seen the posts about the "pincher" moves that the AI makes but I'm quite convinced that this is a byproduct of the crappy deployment AI. For example: The deployment AI always deploys units around VLs. Usually, the AI will group them around two or three VLs. When this happens, sometimes the groups end up on opposite sides of the map. The game starts and these two groups will then attack towards the nearest VLs with respect to that group. This will give the appearance of a pincher movement but in reality both groups of units are attacking down either side of the map because the nearest VL is located in that direction.

Yes, I know you're working on Vehicle pathing but the point of my previous post was that this is the 10th Close Combat release and neither Atomic or Matrix/Strat 3 could ever get the vehicle pathing correct. After 10 releases do you really expect your customers to have patience?

Anyway, I know you guys are working on things and I'm glad you take the time to respond to upset customers, but this is getting old for some of us. We just want to play the games, unbroken and challenging, and with a reasonable degree of realism.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 142
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 3:13:00 AM   
TheReal_Pak40

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 10/8/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
If I had to speculate, not specifically in reference to CC but any AI, (warning very uneducated-in-logic-based-systems and knowing-what's-possible opinion follows) I don't think it'll ever be possible to build an AI that gives the same kind of fight a human player gives. At the very least we're still decades away from computing power and algorithms that can do it on par with a human... reliably... every time in a fully transparent way that there's no possible way to discern it from a real human player. And when I say "same kind of fight a human player gives" I mean genuine risk and speculation based decision making with having relatively little information about what to expect of the environment in which those decisions are being made. On a level playing field with the human player has.

Maybe I'm off my rocker and it's more possible than I think but I just don't know how you can get something that doesn't have a soul or self-awareness to simulate that it does have those things without a crapload of computing power and years and years to write the code. I'd love to be proven wrong.


Hey, I agree. We're not expecting the TacAI to pull off pincher moves and out duel us in a chess like battle. But, when I see squad after squad send itself across a wide open field in a Beeline to the nearest VL, I just shake my head. Especially since there was an alternate route that had cover and concealment - even if it wasn't as direct as the wide open field. And the pity of it is that one squad after the other made the same mistake. There's no trigger in the AI that says, "hey, that big field is deathtrap, let's try another route"

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 143
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 3:52:17 AM   
squadleader_id


Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline 		Try the smaller sized maps...the attacking AI has improved (without any vetmod tweaks) with the latest LSA (beta)patch...nice work devs!
With the bigger maps...still hopeless and clueless!  Too bad most LSA maps are average to large .
Playing as the attacker is still preferable...the crappy AI deployment, mindless manouvers and unnecessary piece-meal counterattacks can be annoying at times though.






I haven't had this much fun defending desperately vs attacking AI since CC5 Stalingrad Der Kessel and Battle of Berlin (with VetMod)...both mods featuring human wave attacks from Russian troops tricked into thinking that they're trucks
No human wave truck-men assaults in the above battle by the US AB troops...not perfect but not bad at all!



< Message edited by squadleader_id -- 8/17/2010 3:54:12 AM >

(in reply to TheReal_Pak40)
Post #: 144
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 4:35:31 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Peterk1
Just a couple of ideas to bump up the percentage of satisfying match-ups against the AI which wouldn't require any super-sophisticated evaluation routines:

The AI could cheat a bit to check whether a charge on a flag is likely to work before the game starts just by checking the set-ups. Something like...

AI has 20 men heading towards position covered by 15 rifles and an MG in buildings, and two mortars waiting....UMMMM....probably not going to work. Don't do it. 30 versus 5 rifles and one mortar? That might work. Go for it. Some little rules of thumb could be used to cancel out the massacres before they even start. Yes, the AI would then be cheating, but if it results in a more satisfying game for the player, I would say go for it.

How about the AI doing it's set-up AFTER it sees the player's setup? Or at least just shifting a few units around to better counter what the player has indicated he intends to do via its setup? I have no idea if it's already doing that, but my gut feeling is no.


Other games have tried the cheating approach to make the AI a tougher opponent. I've never been a fan of the AI cheating. I want to have the glory of springing a surprise attack and get rewarded for my cunning. I remember playing Total Innihilation when it came out and noticed that the AI always knew where my radar "invisible" units actually were. I can't tell you how much that spoiled the whole concept of having invisible units to radar. What's the point if the AI can see them? To me that's about as frustrating as having an AI which charges across open fields guarded by machine guns. Having the AI cheat defeats the whole game IMO. The whole purpose of CC is to use strategy and tactics to achieve your goal. If the AI is going to know where you have your ambush set up then it takes a lot of the glory out of the game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Peterk1)
Post #: 145
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 5:21:18 PM   
Peterk1

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/4/2003
Status: offline 		But it could be done in a random, unpredictable and fairly subtle manner just by varying the amount of AI shift in each game. Would you really blatantly notice it if one or two units were shifted from empty parts of the map to where your attack edge was? More likely, it would just feel like the AI is defending a little bit better.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 146
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 8:59:02 PM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		Jim:
So you don't see the graphic errors with the numerical #'s being inconsistent in any of the WAR maps?
The crappy CC5 color icons you introduced with the last patch for cohesion and fatigue and rest battlegroup?

You cant load up Butgenbach and see that the elevation goes from 25M to 5M then to 17M and has NO shading what so ever to depict that change in elevation.
You cant load up Baraque De Fraiture and CLEARLY see the hills and how they ONLY represent a change in elevation of 2M?

What about Champs?
You don't see how when I look at Butgenbach and see nothing in terms of shading and when you load Champs it has what appears to be massive hills with only a3.5M change in elevation?

Look at the elevations for every map you guys made (and edited)and more than not you will see that it appears to be a flat map when in reality after right clicking it has massive changes in elevations.

Look at Martelange and tell me why the southern VL is surrounded by Deep Water and tell me how I'm supposed to get past that if I don't catch it before deploying troops there.?

Did you know that after the last patch WAR can NOT LOAD any campaigns or Ops or even custom Battles in the Scenario Editor?
I'm more than willing to bet you cant fix the deployment bug and you guys know it.........don't ya?

What the heck are you people doing?


The AI?
I wish I could upload screen shots or videos.
because there is no way you guys would believe what the AI does.
Vehicles all grouped together and then cant move out of it.
Troops that deploy in the field when a house is just inches apart.


NO

What you want is for me and any other paying customer to point out what you couldn't/WOULDN'T do in the first place.



I wanted to buy LSA,because I like that campaign,but there's no way I will buy the same crap I already have just because it looks different and has a few new twists.


Why should I post in the WAR forums when you guys have clearly left that game behind?

< Message edited by Platoon_Michael -- 8/17/2010 9:25:01 PM >

(in reply to Peterk1)
Post #: 147
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 9:39:05 PM   
Platoon_Michael


Posts: 1119
Joined: 3/9/2003
Status: offline 		Night effects

All you guys did was plug that in and moved on
You didn't play any games to see what it looks like on Winter maps.

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 148
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/17/2010 10:07:54 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Differences in aesthetic taste can't be considered errors. Sorry you don't appreciate the way some of the graphics look.

Re: numerical errors on maps - I'll assume you're talking about level numbers. If so point out the specific cases and they'll get fixed. We haven't found any otherwise they would've gotten reported and taken care of.

Re: Butgenbach - I honestly didn't know it had any problems to begin with. Now that you've given specifics it'll get reported and taken care of in turn.

Re: Baraque de Fraiture - Didn't know the problem existed and it got by the testers.. I do now and it'll get taken care of in turn as well.

Ditto Champs.

As I've mentioned elsewhere the improvements for AI and pathing will get back ported to TLD and WaR in turn.

Your perception that we've left WaR behind is incorrect.

Thanks for making the reports even though they're in the wrong forums. They'll get taken care of.

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 149
RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough - 8/18/2010 5:09:42 AM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael
Did you know that after the last patch WAR can NOT LOAD any campaigns or Ops or even custom Battles in the Scenario Editor?


To get all the battles/ops/campaigns to show up just add an * in the filename box.

(in reply to Platoon_Michael)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.141