A.I. Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat - Cross of Iron



Message

z1812 -> A.I. Question (10/23/2006 3:14:54 PM)

Hi All,

Will the A.I. recieve significant improvement?

Regards John



Crimguy -> RE: A.I. Question (10/25/2006 2:05:30 AM)

That's what I want to know - I haven't touched the series since CC3 but remember it was only a challenge on defense.  It could not assault worth a d***.



David Heath -> RE: A.I. Question (10/25/2006 2:27:35 AM)

The CSO team as done a lot of improvements to the AI and I sure gamers will find it a lot harder to beat then in the past.  Of course head to head is the way to go for the best opponent.

David



pops -> RE: A.I. Question (10/25/2006 6:31:52 AM)

Well the A.I. didn't defend well either......that's why I quit playing the game years ago even though I loved it for a while. If the A.I. were as good as SPWAW then it would be great.



Ocelotl -> RE: A.I. Question (10/25/2006 7:10:53 PM)

quote:

Of course head to head is the way to go for the best opponent.

David


Yes I whole heartedly agree, If your only playing the AI your missing out on the real beauty of this game. I have CC, CCII, CC IV and V. Playing vs the AI is only mildly interesting but I have to say your cheating yourself if you dont play head to head...



z1812 -> RE: A.I. Question (10/26/2006 3:25:02 PM)

Hi All,

I have CC Games 1 to 5 and always enjoyed playing them H2H when they were supported at the MSN game zone. However it was time consuming and now, like many others, I look to PBEM and play against the A.I. since time is short for gaming. Hence the original question.

Perhaps my question should have been " how much resource and priority will be directed to improving the A.I.

Regards John



timtom -> RE: A.I. Question (10/27/2006 6:17:30 PM)

I've only played CC1, CC2, and CC5.

I enjoyed CC1, the others less so. I in particular remember CC5 for its nay non-existing AI. I literally "played" missions where I positioned my troops to cover the most obvious routes of approach, started the mission, left the 'puter to make a cup a coffee and came back a few minutes later to see the decisive victory menu :( - the AI had repeatedly banzai'd int my guns in piecemeal fashion...

I'm not trying to diss the game here, just stating my position as a consumer. I really liked the system, but it's the kind of quick-and-easy game I'd play against the AI between PBEM games of WitP and the like. If the AI isn't improved I'll sadly give it a miss, but I guess we can take heart from David's statement.




Beeblebrox -> RE: A.I. Question (10/27/2006 9:35:03 PM)

The changes we have made to the AI are making a difference.  How much is difficult to quantify as the results manifest during game play, and that can be a very personal thing. 

Our objective for CoI was not to produce a new game to be re-release a Classic, and take the opportunity to make some improvements while we are at it.  It probably won't please everone, but that's ever the case...  I won't deny any money will not come in useful... ;)

Our aim to is to put our main 'effort' into producing the next version of CC, where we intend to not only resolve the current inadequacies, but to expand the features as well.  There's some water to go under the bridge before then, but some important foundations are already in place.  I wouldn't get too excited just now, but who knows what 2007 may bring?...



pops -> RE: A.I. Question (10/28/2006 6:59:52 AM)

Man if you could get the AI to defend better I'd be psyched. They can certainly fake a better attack so I think a defend routine would go a long way to make the whole thing seem smarter.

it is such a reality killer when they are supposed to be defending and they come crawling across an open filed towards you under fire......not a believable defense.....



Williamb -> RE: A.I. Question (10/28/2006 10:41:02 PM)

The biggest change to the AI needs to be to prevent it from being a tank heavy purchaser. CC3 was broken because of that AI stupidity.



Beeblebrox -> RE: A.I. Question (10/30/2006 1:30:21 PM)

The 'crawl of death' should be moderated in this release.  The psych model has had some adjustments which makes this less likely (if not reduce it completely).  Same goes for your own Teams.

The tactical competency of the AI is too big an undertaking for this, but is on the agenda for the future (new) release.



z1812 -> RE: A.I. Question (10/30/2006 3:25:04 PM)

Hi Beeblebrox,

Thank you for a clear and direct answer. It is appreciated.

Regards John



pops -> RE: A.I. Question (10/30/2006 6:40:48 PM)

Yes thanks-I really think this would go a LONG way to faking good AI (it's all perception and suspension of disbelief right?).....



dhdbob -> RE: A.I. Question (10/30/2006 10:51:27 PM)

As a die hard CC series fan I'm glad to see a "re-release" coming out. I would prefer to see a new theater such as Pacific  and/or Africa/Italy released in the future. The European Campaign has been overdone in all aspect of WWII pc games, including the most recent Company of Hero's.

The CC series is a great series, but I agree that the AI has been subpar and needs major improvement.

Thanks Matrix and CSO Simtek for bringing Close Combat Back!! [&o][&o][&o]



Peacenik -> RE: A.I. Question (10/31/2006 3:59:03 AM)

My impression was that the AI was essentially 1 dimensional. It did not sem to "understand" flanking movements or other 2 dimensional tactics.

I think the maps were designed with that in mind - small and linear.

That was my impression anyway.

Looking forward to the improvements whatever they are.




Uncle_Joe -> RE: A.I. Question (10/31/2006 7:08:00 AM)

It would be worth it to me just for a unified and simplified system of using mods. I used to love playing the mods in the older CCs, but was away from the game for a few years. Trying to get back into it was bewildering with the number of mods, plug-ins, inserts, graphics packs, complete overhauls etc.

If there is a true 'matchmaking' service included to, then it would easily be worth it to me, even without a lot of other extras. I recall playing CC3 on the Microsoft Gaming Zone, but that is now defunct IIRC. So, simply having a reliable place to find opponents would go a long ways to renewing interest in the game IMO.



RAF -> RE: A.I. Question (10/31/2006 3:03:16 PM)

Recognizing the huge amount of difficult (and cost) associated with having a good AI, and the fact that this is the one item getting the most complaints with any type of game, and that there tend to be a lot of players willing to donate their spare time creating mods, I would like to suggest the following for this or any other game:

Create an interface where scenario designers not only draw the maps and set the initial location for the units, but one in which the scenario designer can also set orders for units.

I believe that even a rudimentary capability along these lines would add a whole new dimention to the game, and satisfy players' interests in fighting a computer opponent that can perform flanking maneuvers, ambush, punch a hole through the line and exploit it with armor, and similar tactics.

The specific nature of this feature would be determined by what types of variables can be fed into the AI.

However, one possibility would be an interface that would allow the computer to generate orders that can override its AI. The standard AI runs in all default circumstances. However, if certain conditions apply, the AI is overridden by orders from the interface.

For example, the interface could allow the scenario designer to establish a set of contingencies for its units by allowing him to select unit, condition, action, priority, duration.

So:

Unit1, Location1 occupied by enemy, Move to Location2, 1, until completed
Unit1, Location1 occupied by enemy, Fire on Location1, 2, 3 min

These orders say that if the enemy captures location1, this unit is supposed to move to Location2 and fire on the units at Location1

Or:

Unit1, Start of game, Fire at enemy units located near L1, 1, Duration = 4 min
Unit2, Start of game, Fire at enemy units located near L1, 1, Duration = 4 min
Unit3, Start of game, Fire at enemy units located near L1, 1, Duration = 2 min
Unit3, 2minutes, Move Fast to Location L1, 1, until completed

Or:

AllUnits, 30%OverallCasualties, Defend, 1, Until end of game.

Something like this will allow players interested in these types of challenges to create orders for any given scenario, then post that mod, and see how players handle their brilliant plans.




Beeblebrox -> RE: A.I. Question (10/31/2006 5:00:44 PM)

pops - 'perception' very much determines how game play is experienced.  There is no sim that I know which gets very close to modelling 'real' Intelligence, and by it's nature is going to be quite a contentious issue :).  CC seems to do remarkably well though...

dhdbob - [&o][&o][&o] LOL! I am just a CC addict/nerd myself [8D]

Peacenik -"It did not seem to "understand" flanking movements or other 2 dimensional tactics."  A Computer doesn't 'understand' anything anyway [;)]  However, be prepared for the AI to pull a few surprises...

Uncle_Joe - (Mods) We have put some effort into improving this.  It must be a nightmare for a newbie coming across Mods atm!  First we have produced a new 'Manager'.  Second, we have a controlled distribution area where Mods have been QC'd and made available to players in a standard way.  This does not mean that Community effort cannot be made available, it can be in the usual ways.  I hope this does bring improvements.  Time will tell [:)]

RAF - Nothing like this will happen in any re-releases, but it is on the agenda for a new release, and is to some degree tied up with the issue of coop AI (a pet subject of mine [;)]) which I would like to see in a new release.








Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9057617