RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior!

RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Scourge of War: Waterloo

Message

Aurelian -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/20/2015 6:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCH Gentlemen, Lets return to some civility. Lets let Norb and his team answer the questions and us who are supporters of the game not get into confrontations. As you don't follow your own advice, (see your response to me) why should anyone else?

Gunfreak -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/20/2015 6:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore quote: ORIGINAL: psynnott quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore Norb said that? I don't believe it till I see it from his on post. I don't believe NORB the HEAD developer said that at all since he knows it's been a problem from the beginning. Now if some wannbe developer said it I take it with a grain of salt cause that too has been going around since the beginning also about how they are gonna fix this or that. As I said I'll believe it when NORB says it HERE. [:-] Lol gunfreak is a USER and MITRA is a moderator/tester (loot at his tag and read) not designer or developer. Try again. MITRA doesn't even speak good engrish to understand him. The closest thing to a designer developer over there talking about this is RebBugler. This is what he says: Actually mitra is a designer, having done tones of ai coding. And he has been one of the best of the developers to answer questions. And his English us just fine.

thewood1 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/20/2015 8:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood as friendly fire isn't on in the game atm, it wouldn't matter if the troops fired though another friendly unit, units to close eg not given enough space will try not to collide with routing, but if not they will cross etc i'm given to believe, depend on what is asked of them to do, and what there commander told them to do is to totally different things some times, as try and do the same move a few times and it may or may not happen, with different spacing units and commanders / etc i maybe wrong as i'm only going by what the developer has said in other posts or seen online / twitch etc Can you name another game covering any period in which friendly troops are depicted firing through each other's ranks? Just following up here...POA2 also didn't have small arms friendly fire. Neither did Steel Panthers...in any iteration I remember. Were those enough examples for you?

aaatoysandmore -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/20/2015 9:44:33 PM)
not worth the arguement. Both Mitra and Reb already said to curb it and that means all of you too. [:'(]

thewood1 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/21/2015 2:08:02 AM)
Curb what? A question was asked and I followed up on it.

sspoom -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/21/2015 2:39:59 AM)
Much of the erratic behavior mentioned above can be avoided (by humans) by using way points.

aaatoysandmore -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/21/2015 3:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 Curb what? A question was asked and I followed up on it. Wasn't talking to you was talking to them. [:'(]

thewood1 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/21/2015 1:21:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 Curb what? A question was asked and I followed up on it. Wasn't talking to you was talking to them. [:'(] Ahhh...might want to make it clearer to avoid misunderstandings.

aaatoysandmore -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (6/21/2015 4:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 quote: ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 Curb what? A question was asked and I followed up on it. Wasn't talking to you was talking to them. [:'(] Ahhh...might want to make it clearer to avoid misunderstandings. Well, I was hoping I wouldn't have to mention names to protect the innoncent. [:D]

risorgimento59 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (9/30/2016 3:21:01 PM)
Wrong thread, sorry. Had too many windows opened.[;)]

AP514 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (10/9/2016 1:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 I'm sorry - I want to love your games. I buy them all all and play them all. When they work well, I post extensively to illustrate their merits and to encourage others to buy them too. But when age old issues remain unchanged, and when basic AI behaviour ruins the experience, I post about that too. I have to totally Agree..the conga Line dance and Brgs. not staying in formation is a Game Killer.......I have to PASS on any Future games using this Engine.

zakblood -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (10/9/2016 5:57:17 AM)
some posts here are starting to go either off topic or on being un civil and if it carry's on the same way, the posts will be report and maybe the thread closed, if you don't agree on a given point that's fine, but any replies need to be civil and in the rules

JamesLxx -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (12/26/2016 10:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JamesL You may have noticed some bizarre formation behaviour by the AI, for example: A regiment withdraws a short distance - by forming a complex looping manoeuvre at the run....it then marches back to its new position and turns to face front by using a similar looped execution with both ends running towards the centre and out again..... In real life the only orders needed here are: "about face" "march" "halt" "about face!" So why cant the AI use these simple orders that are already programmed and available in the grog toolbar? Next - wheeling lines: You will have seen lines representing 100's of men suddenly form a fast fluid S while running to change facing by wheeling on their centre axis! This would not work in real life, looks wrong in the game, and breaks up the main brigade line. There is already programmed in the toolbar the commands wheel left forward/left back/right back ect in which the regiment pivots a short distance from its flank not its centre. Using this command the regiment does the real life "refuse flank" manoeuvre while keeping its flank attached to the main line. And lastly - when an AI regiment repositions itself within the brigade it does the S-run-wheel often with half its line stuck out at right angles beyond the brigade front line. Again there exists already programmed commands such as "left flank" "oblique right" available to the player which shifts and repositions a regiment in short realistic moves. Sorry about the rant - this is a great game which could be superb if the Ai stopped using unrealistic formation behaviour and stuck to the more realistic manoeuvres which are already programmed and available to the player. Out of curiosity I have returned to this post and the original 18 month old thread starter from myself above and ask: have these issues been addressed in any way?

RebBugler -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (12/27/2016 6:30:57 PM)
With the last patch pivot moves have been coded to replace some wheeling movements, but wheeling still takes place quite often. Also, lines will auto move when overlapping of formations occurs, this works fairly well with getting lines untangled now. One of the main issues I tackled with the Grog Toolbar were the issues caused by moving line formations. I just flat denied line movements in lieu of Columns by Division. At least this eliminates the 'Conga Line' effect and just plain cleans things up...not a bunch of sticks moving around looking helter skelter. Other mods have done the same, the KS mod for instance also allows column formations to fire. So, with mods there are new playing options, improving the game for some...at least that's what I've read.

JamesLxx -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (12/27/2016 8:27:49 PM)
That's great, in that case I'll reinstall & give it a go once more.

aaatoysandmore -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (1/1/2017 5:05:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim_NSD Our priority has always been to make the best simulation possible of the experience of commanding troops in combat. This is distinct from making a simulation of the battle. At the end of the day if you have a real appreciation for what it was like to sit in that commanders saddle and have to make those decisions in real time then we have succeeded. As long as the troops react in a way that allows you fight the battle correctly we do not worry about drill book perfection. It is that command experience that we are after. -Jim And you're doing a fine job Jim I love the series no matter what silly things the units do sometimes. I realize it's a game first and not so much an historical history lesson. [:D] Now, when yah gonna do an ancients game like Rome or Greeks? [&o]

Aurelian -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (1/8/2017 4:37:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood as friendly fire isn't on in the game atm, it wouldn't matter if the troops fired though another friendly unit, units to close eg not given enough space will try not to collide with routing, but if not they will cross etc i'm given to believe, depend on what is asked of them to do, and what there commander told them to do is to totally different things some times, as try and do the same move a few times and it may or may not happen, with different spacing units and commanders / etc i maybe wrong as i'm only going by what the developer has said in other posts or seen online / twitch etc Can you name another game covering any period in which friendly troops are depicted firing through each other's ranks? Just following up here...POA2 also didn't have small arms friendly fire. Neither did Steel Panthers...in any iteration I remember. Were those enough examples for you? In the original Rome:Total War, you learned to not put archers behind your lines. Unless you like getting shot in the back :)

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (1/8/2017 1:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thewood1 quote: ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 quote: ORIGINAL: zakblood as friendly fire isn't on in the game atm, it wouldn't matter if the troops fired though another friendly unit, units to close eg not given enough space will try not to collide with routing, but if not they will cross etc i'm given to believe, depend on what is asked of them to do, and what there commander told them to do is to totally different things some times, as try and do the same move a few times and it may or may not happen, with different spacing units and commanders / etc i maybe wrong as i'm only going by what the developer has said in other posts or seen online / twitch etc Can you name another game covering any period in which friendly troops are depicted firing through each other's ranks? Just following up here...POA2 also didn't have small arms friendly fire. Neither did Steel Panthers...in any iteration I remember. Were those enough examples for you? LOL. Happy New Year gents. Now, I didn't mean, 'Can you name any game since the development of PC games began...?' I'm not sure that all the games you've listed are even 3D... I play a lot of Combat Mission x 2, for example, and while you can't deliberately designate a friendly unit as a target, you can most certainly bring down friendly area fire on it. Arty blue-on-blue are also very common, as is air. In Jagged Alliance BIA, your troopers can even accidentally bounce a grenade off a tree limb and have it fall at their feet and kill them; and that game is several years old. All I'm saying is that when I pay from my today credit card for a brand new today game, I expect to get a today game... But this is apparently an unreasonable expectation.

Mr Digby -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (1/10/2017 10:57:27 AM)
There is no such thing as a "today" game, as every game is designed to deliver different things and the team that makes every game has different priorities. You buy a game from a company like Creative Arts and you should expect a certain kind of product; buy from Bohemia Interactive and again, a differently designed product; buy from a tiny garage indie company like NSD and you need to expect a differnt kind of product again. There is no law I'm aware of that compels you to buy every game, so just avoid the ones that don't meet your personal tastes.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (2/8/2017 3:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr Digby There is no such thing as a "today" game, as every game is designed to deliver different things and the team that makes every game has different priorities. You buy a game from a company like Creative Arts and you should expect a certain kind of product; buy from Bohemia Interactive and again, a differently designed product; buy from a tiny garage indie company like NSD and you need to expect a differnt kind of product again. There is no law I'm aware of that compels you to buy every game, so just avoid the ones that don't meet your personal tastes. Ah, I see. Apologies. I didn't actually realise NSD was some kind of garage outfit. I must have missed that on the marketing page when I paid for the game. Maybe they should put that statement up in bold print? Anyway, it's not the 'Indie' thing that bothers me; it's the attitude and the insistence on the customer always being wrong. Have fun defending this garage output. It's already being left behind by new titles.

RCHarmon -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (2/10/2017 12:34:54 PM)
Redmarkus4, Your taking this a bit personal. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever been a member of Norbsoft, but from what I have seen and heard(if you can believe 2nd and 3rd hand accounts) this is what happened. Norbsoft has a good American Civil War title. Matrix picked them up and immediately wanted new titles that they could market. Norbsoft made a expansion for current users and a stand alone game for new users called Chancellorsville. After that, Norbsoft decided to move its concepts into Napoleonics. The Waterloo anniverserary was coming up and it would be good for sales and Matrix wanted it. Matrix will deny the following, but it is all very true. Matrix wanted Norbsoft to design a new interface in the game and have the game out by the anniverserary. Matrix was very involved in telling Norbsoft what THEY wanted. Norbsoft spent vast ammounts of time on the new GUI and other things that they didn't have to. When it came to things that they really needed to look at and work out for Napoleonics warefare very little was done. Yes there is squares and cavalry and the like, but tracking in any Napoleonic game is crucial was left not seriously addressed. Formations and movements again was not looked at. Changing the AI for sub commanders didn't change much from the Civil War series. My point is is that Norbsoft was directed and pressured by Matrix and a very lacking product was put out. Again, Matrix will deny, but it was Matrix's idea to change the GUI (so the game could be marketed to younger players???????? Even though younger players who play Gettysburg don't like the new GUI) and it was Matrix's date that Norbsoft felt compelled to hit. I mean when the game came out there wasn't even a final combat information screen showing casualties. Just read the acknowledgments written by Norb himself with the release of the game and you can get the feel of the pressure that they were under. This is Matrix's disaster and for the ones of us who support Norbsoft it may be over. There is no talk of new titles or expansions beyond what was already planned. Matrix may have killed Norbsoft. They will say sales are good and this is all rubbish and sales are good, but the future doesn't look so good or we would hear about more titles etc. Nothing. Personally, out of the players that I know, lets say around 25, all but a few have put the game down. It is a shame really, but the games potential was lost. Now please do not knock the players who are enjoying the game. It does have flashes of greatness and where else can you put out the types of battles that the game engine does? The Kriegspiel mod makes the game more playable and the online experience is good (if you can get past the new GUI) When I say new GUI, the pop up commands are optional and do work okay. What I am talking about is that they changed everything else from the Gettysburg game. Once clear and easy to navigate is now clumsy and covered with smoke.

Mr Digby -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (3/11/2017 9:47:47 PM)
RCH, thanks. I think your post covers things very well. The new GUI was an absolute disaster for NSD. BTW, if you ever want to try for MP games with HITS and Couriers and teh Kriegspiel mod, please drop by our forums and say hi. We'd be delighted to have you join us. http://kriegsspiel.forumotion.net/f32-scourge-of-war

*Lava* -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (3/28/2017 3:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCH When it came to things that they really needed to look at and work out for Napoleonics warefare very little was done. Yes there is squares and cavalry and the like, but tracking in any Napoleonic game is crucial was left not seriously addressed. Formations and movements again was not looked at. I was a beta tester for "Civil War: Battle Of Bull Run - Take Command: 1861." This "good game" as you call it (and it was) was made by MadMinute Games of which Norb was a partner and published by Activision in 2005. The formation problem started back then and never was resolved. Regiments fanning out from a column march was just the way the engine was designed. You could get around this problem by taking command of the formation and then ordering them to advance in line formation. However, only the human player could do this and the AI always used the column to line design for movement. I believe if you go back to the precursor of this series to Sid Meier's Gettysburg, you will find that the units also behaved the same way and only the human player could actually "force" a unit to advance in line formation. So this problem has been around for a long time. The designer of the first game of this series (Take Command Bull Run) Adam Bryant, BTW, took his inspiration from this game. And the best solution for both games was to play multiplayer. While in the earlier titles (ACW), even though this was a bit wonky, folks accepted it as just part of the game. I think this is because the majority of the units were fairly small, had room to maneuver and thus it wasn't so noticeable. However, the behavior of getting themselves all entangled due to how they changed formation was noticeable for all the larger units going back to the first game made with this engine. Given that they never solved this problem it was only a matter of time until they pushed the engine into a battle situation (Napoleonics) in which this behavior could not be hidden and was totally out of place by historical standards. Matrix is not responsible for this. Failure to rectify a known problem of the engine dating back to it's origin (which possibly isn't fixable) is responsible for this.

Redmarkus5 -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (4/8/2017 9:13:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Failure to rectify a known problem of the engine dating back to it's origin (which possibly isn't fixable) is responsible for this. Lava - Exactly. Well said. RCH, I'm not taking things personally, except when people try to suggest that I'm some kind of idiot for complaining. I've owned all the games in this series, plus the forebears going right back to Sid Meier. I even played 'Napoleonics' back in the olden days. What I'm asking for is really very simple: Take the vastly superior approach to handling unit movement and formations of TW and UGCW and implement them in this series. Otherwise the game will fail. I haven't even asked for a refund! I've been saying this since Day One and I was the person who first used the phrase 'conga line' on this forum.

Prince of Eckm�hl -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (4/12/2017 4:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lava Failure to rectify a known problem of the engine dating back to it's origin (which possibly isn't fixable) is responsible for this. Now Ray, let's not forget that one man's "known problem" is another man's feature![;)] As you mention, the NS ACW games have a lot in common with the Sid Meier's ACW games. The AI in both series leverages the relatively simple linear formations of the era and exploits the reality that the computer can execute moves and adjust to changing circumstances far more quickly and precisely than it's human opponent. That's why the AIs are widely lauded. In a game involving relatively simple algebra and geometry, a computer can be hard to beat! HOWEVER, those same virtues don't necessarily translate to the far more complex Napoleonic battlefield. As evidence, I'd point, once again to two titles that were developed from SMG/SMA, Waterloo and Austerlitz from Breakaway Games. They were fun games, particularly MP, but no one was ever going to confuse what the AI was doing with Napoleonic warfare. It just went at you, sort of helter shelter, until it ran out of sprites or you did. I agree with you, Ray. The "features" of the game are such that it will never translate well as a simulation of Napoleonic warfare. That's not to say that the Napoleonic titles aren't fun to play. You just have be willing to overlook the shortcomings. -PoE (aka ivanmoe)

*Lava* -> RE: Some practical suggestions to prevent unrealistic ai formation behavior! (5/8/2017 11:09:47 AM)
Hi Ivanmoe! Do keep my comments in context. I wasn't attacking the game but stating that it wasn't "Matrix's" fault for whatever shortcomings folks see in Waterloo. quote: ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckm�hl As evidence, I'd point, once again to two titles that were developed from SMG/SMA, Waterloo and Austerlitz from Breakaway Games. They were fun games, particularly MP, but no one was ever going to confuse what the AI was doing with Napoleonic warfare. It just went at you, sort of helter shelter, until it ran out of sprites or you did. Indeed! The engine that made SM's Gettysburg a classic translated very poorly to the Napoleonic period. I know you guys were being egged on to push the game into Napoleonic warfare by your fans. And I think the Dev team knew this was going to be difficult. But it would appear that a ton of issues were solved so overall I would say ya'll did well. I think if I had been in charge (lol), I would have worked my way up to Waterloo by first producing a couple smaller scale battles and working out all the kinks. But the gaming industry has a way of forcing folks to move to bigger and bigger projects. Hopefully ya'll will continue to make new games. There are tons of 18th and 19th century wars to be recreated. The Franco-Prussian war, for example, is fairly poorly represented in wargaming circles. Good luck to all of you in the future.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75