RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem



Message

Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 10:02:18 AM)

I wanted to provide some evidence of how awful the single-player game is. Here is a typical screenshot of my post-battle results. As you can see, even with a single light tank, it is possible to simply decimate the idiotic waves of attacking enemy troops.

[image]local://upfiles/25914/E3FBD5D41FA64F4FB2A1382A26B9773C.jpg[/image]



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 10:03:14 AM)

And just in case you thought that was a fluke...



[image]local://upfiles/25914/80F8AD3094F74B6383173E2D670184FE.jpg[/image]



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 10:13:18 AM)

Ultimately, I completely uninstalled the program and deleted it, to keep myself from wasting another half hour as the computer simply sits there doing nothing while I wonder if I should just end the battle or if it will ever start attacking. I simply refuse to play it ever again knowing that the "won't attack" bug still exists.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 10:44:35 AM)

I always attack... it's the best defence.

teams are always on the top floor of a building AI and human player... no such thing as being on a lower floor.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 12:04:44 PM)

quote:

I always attack... it's the best defence.

Well, although that's a popular cliche, is really not true. You should really read Clausewitz's On War sometime, or Sun Tzu's Art of War. They both really emphasize the strength of a proper defense, which is weak primarily because it is difficult to plan. Its easy to plan an attack correctly, just stop once it quits working, but in a defense you can't choose to stop. In any case, I simply can't rationalize in my head why I would want to attack across to the other side of the bridge, when my obvious strategic goal is merely to hold the bridge. There are lots of cheap tricks like that which make the game more difficult, but they don't actually make the game more fun. Attacking just to attack is really just pointless.

There is a quote from some military theorists who states that the true test of generalship is not attacking and achieving victory, but retreating against a superior enemy force. I wish Close Combat would let me play that style of game, in which I am constantly trying to delay its advance and fall back to new positions. But it just doesn't work, because sometimes it simply won't move, and even when it does move, it keeps more than half of its troops behind to do nothing. How hard could it be for them to code an 'attack' AI which simply ordered its troops to start walking to the other side of the map?

It would be nice of the AI would simply work (it doesn't even need to work well, it just needs to work and attack when its supposed to attack). Unless I hear they've fixed that bug, I don't expect I'll ever play Close Combat again.





Andrew Williams -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 12:35:57 PM)

Did Clauswitz play Close Combat... i think not.

So I diodn't read any more..........zzzzzzz



RD Oddball -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 1:48:19 PM)

Adam, sorry if you already pointed this out. After a quick search I couldn't find where you did. Are you using the first update with your game? Just curious what game set-up you're reporting this against.



Neil N -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 3:26:22 PM)

Those screenshots are not even from LSA



Razz1 -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 4:03:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff

quote:

I always attack... it's the best defence.



There is a quote from some military theorists who states that the true test of generalship is not attacking and achieving victory, but retreating against a superior enemy force.
It would be nice of the AI would simply work (it doesn't even need to work well, it just needs to work and attack when its supposed to attack). Unless I hear they've fixed that bug, I don't expect I'll ever play Close Combat again.



Isn't this war happened in Storm Over the Pacific? In WWII the USA Navy withdrew and attacked only when necessary.

In fact the British withdrew until 1944 in the Pacific.



dandechino -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 5:47:30 PM)

I agree with squatter. I just purchased LSA and am noticing all of the same bugs that were in CC2 back in the day. I put down good money on a game hoping for the best. I like the idea- the concept. I like having a tactical game on this scale. Pathfinding needs to be fixed- I can't stand having my troops run in circles like ants when I tell them to move forward or fire. I cant stand when the road has a perfectly good bridge and my tanks decide to cross the creek instead and then forget where I told them to go in the first place. I also don't like playing against a dead AI. If the AI is going to be this broken then multiplayer needs to be more simple- like a battle.net client is for starcraft II. Inside the game there should be server with games to choose from and lobbies to chat/post messages. In the meantime fixing pathfinding and really really re-coding the single player game's AI would be great.



dandechino -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 5:50:38 PM)

I also wouldn't purchase another CC if it's just a different setting and no substantial upgrades are made.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 8:49:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

Those screenshots are not even from LSA


What's your point? They are still from Close Combat, its not like the AI is any better in LSA.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 8:53:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Adam, sorry if you already pointed this out. After a quick search I couldn't find where you did. Are you using the first update with your game? Just curious what game set-up you're reporting this against.


Im reporting this against every game set up. Ive played all kinds of different versions of Close Combat, I was modding from the very beginning with CC1, and I've seen it all. And in every version of CC there has been one consistent problem: broken AI. Not just bad AI, but flat-out blatantly broken AI that needs to be fixed. Every other game developer in the world has figured out how to make the troops move across the map, but for some reason in Close Combat the AI almost never moves all of its troops, and sometimes it moves none of them! The AI either runs directly at me and gets mowed down, or mills around aimlessly and gets mowed down, or simply never appears. That is simply unacceptable.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 9:15:58 PM)

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



Andrew Williams -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 9:16:42 PM)

and sometimes it swamps you.

But yes, the Ai is something that is being looked at, wether anything can be done is anotheer question.... maybe put it to bed with a copy of von clauswitz's 1832 tome



Andrew Williams -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 9:18:20 PM)

quote:

basically rewriting it instead of applying fixes on top of it)


it should be noted this is not available publicly yet.



Cathartes -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 11:01:40 PM)

quote:

Im reporting this against every game set up. Ive played all kinds of different versions of Close Combat, I was modding from the very beginning with CC1, and I've seen it all. And in every version of CC there has been one consistent problem: broken AI.


1. Think the AI has improved in LSA, and it's getting better. If you choose the more realistic and challenging settings and take default deployment and play on the attack, it's the best it's been in the series.

2. If you've been playing CC all these years, why are you still playing AI? H2H is superb. Checkers or chess?



Neil N -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 11:25:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

Those screenshots are not even from LSA


What's your point? They are still from Close Combat, its not like the AI is any better in LSA.


My point...you're talking about LSA and posting images from something else...nothing more, nothing less. The AI in any other version of CC has never executed a pincer move on my troops like it has in LSA. Capture a VL, and now, they automatically counterattack, etc, etc. Those things are far from the same AI, and big improvements. If you don't see those things, perhaps it is your settings or how you play. When you say every other developer in the world has figured out how to make troops move across the map, it's called scripting, not AI...and once you've played it and know how the script moves the computer opponent, it's not much fun.



7A_Woulf -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/13/2010 11:35:50 PM)

quote:

When you say every other developer in the world has figured out how to make troops move across the map, it's called scripting, not AI...and once you've played it and know how the script moves the computer opponent, it's not much fun.


A bit like Medal of Honour: -They same taped track, with the same enemies at the same place, doing the same thing, in every game... A good looking game, but not as exciting once you played the track once! [:'(]

I take CC any day, even with "broken AI"!



gabeeg -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 12:29:53 AM)

I have to say the first patch to LSA gave me a lot of hope that this was not a permanent issue with the AI.   It really has my enthusiasm up for the future of the series.  Once path finding is working I will be satisfied...and if the AI can be tweaked some more...I will be very happy.  The progress made thus far should not be overlooked.

I think if you are not playing LSA with the first patch installed you are beating a dead horse about AI issues with other CC versions and with the initial release of LSA.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 9:41:43 AM)

quote:

I think if you are not playing LSA with the first patch installed you are beating a dead horse about AI issues with other CC versions and with the initial release of LSA.


That hardly seems logical considering that plenty of people have posted here specifically about the LSA AI. And if the AI in LSA is so dramatically improved, well let me know when you release a patch for the last version of CC, because people that paid for it are still waiting for a working product.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 9:42:58 AM)

quote:

When you say every other developer in the world has figured out how to make troops move across the map, it's called scripting, not AI...and once you've played it and know how the script moves the computer opponent, it's not much fun.


Oh please, until you've learned how the 'AI' moves the troops in Close Combat, you aren't qualified to give an opinion about whether or not the AI is broken or not. At this point, Close Combat should swallow its pride and implement scripting, because that'd be better than broken AI.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 9:46:03 AM)


quote:

The AI in any other version of CC has never executed a pincer move on my troops like it has in LSA. Capture a VL, and now, they automatically counterattack, etc, etc.


Actually, they always did that, and its very easy to anticipate what the AI is about to do and then just sit there and mow them down as they rush blindly forward. Nearly every game I play of CC tends to involve a long red streak of dead bodies which apparently indicates what the computer thinks as the 'safest' approach route.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 9:53:11 AM)

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.



Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 9:55:57 AM)

Ultimately, myself and others do not want to buy another Close Combat where this problem is still occurring:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2546923


FIX IT, and release patches for at the very least the previous version of Close Combat (the Normandy one).



gabeeg -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/14/2010 8:31:52 PM)

I agree that any improvements to the AI should be back ported to the previous CC's.  Hopefully that is something that can be done and that the AI is not specifically built for each particular release.




Adam Rinkleff -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/15/2010 12:24:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gabeeg

I agree that any improvements to the AI should be back ported to the previous CC's.  Hopefully that is something that can be done and that the AI is not specifically built for each particular release.





They probably can't do it for all of them with practicable ease, but it should be possible with Longest Day.



RD Oddball -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/15/2010 5:37:40 PM)

It's in the plans to port the AI and the upcoming pathing improvements into both TLD and WaR some time after the LSA updates are done.



Platoon_Michael -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/15/2010 6:02:06 PM)

After all that importing of updates into WAR is done will you guys then begin working on the Maps for WAR and correcting the multiple issues they still have?

xe5 has finally got you guys looking at the many issues with maps in LSA that not many people see,but no one is mentioning the same issues for the WAR maps over at the WAR forums.
Actually no one seems to use the forums over there anymore.

The latest patch for WAR has created the most comical glitch I have seen in a long time.

I wonder how long it will take for anyone to find it?
I can't provide you with any hints,you just got to PLAY the game and find it.



Neil N -> RE: Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough (8/15/2010 10:02:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

The latest patch for WAR has created the most comical glitch I have seen in a long time.

I wonder how long it will take for anyone to find it?
I can't provide you with any hints,you just got to PLAY the game and find it.

Testers are unlikely to come across it these days as they are working on other things...Probably like me, they have not played (or played very little) since the release, because they are on to the next test project. So people playing and reporting are how things have a chance to get fixed. So I suggest you quit pretending you are playing a funny game with developers and report it...otherwise, the chances are virtually zero that it gets fixed.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625