It is disappointing. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> FlashPoint Germany



Message

z1812 -> It is disappointing. (2/24/2005 8:37:37 PM)

Hi all,

I have spent some time now playing the A.I. pre and post patch. The following issues really need to be put to rest.

1. Enemy A.I. Helos not participating in the scenarios.

2. HQ's moving out in front of battlegroups.

3. Combat fire is still not balanced. Fire still seems, for the most part ,relegated to one side during a time segment and then to the other in the next segment.

4. A.I. units do not move properly to address Victory requirements.

5. A.I. does not respond logically to threats.

I could continue the list but I am not interested in complaining. I would just like these issues and others fixed because the system and the game idea have such great potential.

The above are not hidden little bugs but issues central to a properly working wargame. I am reluctently coming to the conclusion that perhaps the game was released a little before its time. I also wonder how these items were overlooked in testing. It so easy to beat the A.I. that it is not worth playing against it.

If you have a we-go system it is essential the A.I. makes reasonable choices most of the time. That is because the A.I. is making choices for you during turn resolution whether you are playing the A.I. or a human. They may not always be choices one likes but they should at least be reasonable most of the time.

Regards John



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/24/2005 9:25:13 PM)

I'm not jumping to defend the game out of some irrational need to defend my purchase. I guess I'm just not seeing the problem a lot of folks are.

The AI's tendency to use its HQs up front has been documented. I can see where that needs to be addressed. And I think I've seen somewhere that it is. I'll also take your word that helos aren't being used.

But there are some areas I just don't see. Fire resolution in my games (post patch) hasn't struck me as being limited in the way you describe. Before the patch, my defending troops would wallop approaching Russian units in the first exchange. I'm not fibbing when I say that has not been the case lately. Not at all. And as for the AI not moving to meet Victory Conditions -- no way. Prime example remains "Forward Defense" where I played the Germans and saw the Russians smash through one part of my line, then HURL themselves towards Westerbruck and its victory points.

They pushed towards that part of the map en masse.

Another battle -- the AI was held up on the northern half of my line, creates a break in the south then shifts the bulk of its forces that I can see to exploit.

So maybe some other folks see these limits, but I haven't yet. Honestly.

And while the AI isn't anything compared to a human player (unless you're playing me, in which case the AI might strike you as brilliant), I don't think FPG is crippled as a wego game because of the way the single play experience turns out.

I think some issues may be attributed to scenario design, and may be explained by seeing that this is the first batch of missions created for a new title.

I think the Combat Mission series, for example, are brilliant wego titles, and the AI there fails to use a number of assets in a lot of scenarios OR abandons prime positions, pushing its HQs and support weapons haplessly along into your kill sacks OR leaves a huge portion of its armor and halftracks stranded in some obscure part of the map.... unless the scenario designer has really done his homework and tweaked victory flag locations and unit deployments not to screw up. I'm not wrong there. You'll see some of the best scenarios for the game are ones that came out months after release -- crafted by fans who have studied the engine's limitations.

I don't say anyone should settle. And of course there's room for improvement. I'm just saying that when put into context, I don't see the AI in this game being noticeably worse than in any other title I've picked up. I for one am not dismayed by what I see. The AI in Flashpoint can attack (at least in the scenarios I've played) and create some hard times for your defenders. And it can maul any assets that blunder into its defensive positions. And I've noticed a few posts here from other gamers where there has been a noticeable ramping up in the game's difficulty/challenge factor with just the 1.01 patch alone. If anything, I'm encouraged to hear that the 1.02 update is going to focus pretty extensively on getting the AI even further along.

That's it. Sorry to be so long-winded. And if I'm wrong, feel free to beat me over the head with a dead fish.
Matt



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/24/2005 10:37:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: themattcurtis
Another battle -- the AI was held up on the northern half of my line, creates a break in the south then shifts the bulk of its forces that I can see to exploit.


That's way cool!


quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812
Combat fire is still not balanced. Fire still seems, for the most part ,relegated to one side during a time segment and then to the other in the next segment.


I have the opposite impression. I think that the side that has most runners ready to fire fires most during a time frame.

I agree with the lack of usage of helos by the AI, though.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/24/2005 10:47:55 PM)

The Helo's are the only real flaw in my eyes, the rest just needs adjusting and we are well on our way. I can't see that the Ai is that bad, it's not BiN, but it's hard to determine after many years of wargaming what is brilliance on my part and what is an easy Ai[:D].



Adam Parker -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/25/2005 12:09:45 AM)

Hi Z. Agreed on Helo's and HQ's of course. The impression is that helo's were always slated for patch 2. Hopefully HQ's now too.

I think both you and Matt are right about AI pathing for objectives. Matt because indeed, the AI does seem to know where to head which is a great sign. Yourself, because I think, as a by-product of not knowing how to employ its helo's and HQ's, the AI in the end is simply showing poor execution. Then again we must remember that AI's are all about math and math is dependant on processing power. The greatest designers still face this dilemma and of recent times they're showing signs of immense genius looking outside the square.

As an example in this title - and apologies because I can't remember who posted seeing the AI's mech conduct and assault - but I did last night.

quote:

z1812 wrote:

The above are not hidden little bugs but issues central to a properly working wargame. I am reluctently coming to the conclusion that perhaps the game was released a little before its time. I also wonder how these items were overlooked in testing.


True as to the bugs. As for testing sometimes there's a tendency to become caught up in head-head play as opposed to vs the AI. I've had the honor to work with a great scen designer who himself coordinates much of the playtesting for his and other titles. His projects run both head-head and head-AI tests, back and forth, inside and out, reversed, tweaked and run again. Longer scens pose a challenge - being time - but there are some great playtesters who give up a whole month just to play campaigns as far as humanly possible. Yet, lines eventually have to be drawn there.

The truth is that testing teams will likely bring up many issues that a developer just cannot due to budget or time address. Sometimes because testers, designers and developers are human, obvious things will just be missed. With me it's typos. I can find other people's but not my own! Sometimes there just aren't enough testers to go around. I mean really talented, volunteering people who just will not let you down. Life's challenges do also pop-out of the blue. One for me recently that saw me pull out of the forthcoming Panzer Campaigns Title. Priorities happens but life and war gaming goes on.

But to a paying public, disappointment is a right. In 2005 I too feel that games can at least now be expected to be refined sufficiently to avoid the more obvious of bugs, exhaust the "push every key and see what happens" errors, be typo free in rule books and adopting the latest of UI conveniences rather than harking back to reinventing the wheel.

By 2005 there are rightly some very harsh consumers with cupboards full of unplayable, broken games. Yeah we are becoming more cynical in appraisals as a result but this too is bringing out the best in the most talented of design houses. It's intersting that where the demographics remain just too young, crap still stocks the gaming shelves! Dare I say XBox, PS2 et al, point and shot and sin the Sims type of silicone fare. These design houses just have to clone and the youngsters' money rolls in [:)]

Adam.



z1812 -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/25/2005 3:57:57 AM)

Hi themattcurtis

I tried the scenario you mentioned hoping to encounter a good A.I. challenge.


And I quote from your post "And as for the AI not moving to meet Victory Conditions -- no way. Prime example remains "Forward Defense" where I played the Germans and saw the Russians smash through one part of my line, then HURL themselves towards Westerbruck and its victory points." End quote.

I played Nato and without much problem I gained a decisive victory. However I appreciate your answer to my original post and I am sure we both hope for subsequent patches to improve a game with wonderful potential.

Regards John



jjax -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/25/2005 4:06:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

The Helo's are the only real flaw in my eyes, the rest just needs adjusting and we are well on our way. I can't see that the Ai is that bad, it's not BiN, but it's hard to determine after many years of wargaming what is brilliance on my part and what is an easy Ai[:D].



Easy AI? I know two things for sure: One, i suck at wargames (luv playing them though [;)]) two, i having no trouble blowing past the ai. The ai is a bit on the dumb side. But then again, make me feel better about my self!!!



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/25/2005 4:15:28 AM)

Hey there [:)]

Well, you're apparently a better player than I am. My ego isn't bruised[:D] I got a challenge in that scenario, where I didn't in the previous battle. So I was happy. Maybe I need to read up more on modern doctrine.

But regardless of our respective skill sets, the AI behaved as the AI behaved. It was aggressive in "Forward Defense," and from what I've seen, flexible in at least one other scenario. It moved toward the mission objective (Westerbruck) and I sure didn't get any lopsided advantage in gun duels (wish I had). I'm eager to see what's in the 1.02 patch, as any improvement can be viewed as good news. But I still think some of the problems are more related to scenario design than in any defficiency (did I spell that right?) in the game engine.

And for a mediocre gamer like me, the AI isn't a game breaker as it stands today.



GreenDestiny -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 11:00:13 AM)

I'm sorry but if you can just park your units after one turn and do nothing and win, then there's something wrong. Saying you suck does not fix it.



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 4:41:45 PM)

Whatever.

I've tried to make some valid points about this game. My jabs at my skill set are made in good humor.

I don't care what you say, No one has put up pic or a description of beating the AI by taking their units as their deployed, issuing one set of movement orders IN TOTAL and then just sitting there.

The AI needs to be tweaked. No one argues that. And I've tried to document what I have seen, from HQs to air units. And I've seen other people do the same, offering concrete examples complete with pics and attempting to find a way to address them (Adam's one, I'd have to look around to name others, but they're there). Just saying some nebulous factor is "wrong" does nothing to fix anything either. Give some examples.



GreenDestiny -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 5:28:31 PM)

Well I was not really jumping on you…sorry if it look that way.. I’m just so sick of every one saying that this game is fine when it’s not. As for some examples… what the hell do you want me to do??.. I can attack with my NATO units.. And watch them get killed…but why would I do that when I could just sit there and watch them win??..and what’s this stuff that I been reading about out flanking ????? How the hell can you out flank something when they have a 360 degree defense around them???.. It’s point less.

I’m sorry…. I read the manual and try to understand it… but when I play the game it's just not happening.



John21b -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 5:38:19 PM)

Try PBEM, the game plays fast and is very enjoyable. I'm on my second, the first was a nail biter.

John



GreenDestiny -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 5:39:39 PM)

I think that's the only way to go.



Erik Rutins -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 6:47:04 PM)

Everyone,

I realize some players prefer or only have time to play the AI. We're not ignoring you. After release but well before the current two threads about AI disappointment, we realized that the AI could use improvement in some areas. As a result, before these threads went up we decided that 1.02 would be focused largely on AI improvements for those people who prefer single player as they way to go.

In the meantime, we feel 1.01 has fixed a number of minor glitches and helped get us to a better game balance between attack and defense. Both against AI and human players, I think it's significantly better than 1.00.

With all this said, the AI in any computer game is generally good for a quick game, trying out a new tactic and, in a nutshell, practicing for when you fight against a human player. This can be said about virtually every computer game out there, from Warcraft to Half-Life 2. In all honesty, there are very few AIs that give me any challenge after the first game or two and while I would not want a game without them, I do personally fall into the "play humans for a real challenge" camp. With that said, we realize based on your feedback that we don't yet have this AI to the point where it is a good enough opponent and we're going to work to get it to that point. Thanks.

Regards,

- Erik



jjax -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/26/2005 8:06:37 PM)

Well... I'm one that prefers to play AI instead of the breathing folk out there, so im always hopeful that the matrix staff can get the problems (that we all know exist) fixed.

But, im not holding my breath.[;)].



ravinhood -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/27/2005 12:42:13 AM)

quote:

I think the Combat Mission series, for example, are brilliant wego titles, and the AI there fails to use a number of assets in a lot of scenarios OR abandons prime positions, pushing its HQs and support weapons haplessly along into your kill sacks OR leaves a huge portion of its armor and halftracks stranded in some obscure part of the map....


Now don't you go badmouthing the Combat Mission series AI just because the AI in your game has problems, since CMBB and CMAK the AI has been great and I haven't noticed ANY of those things you mentioned, "really", "I'm not fibbing". ;) See just like you I can use your own words and statements to show a game you describe as faulty as not faulty. lol It's a continuous chain. Now, if you want to take a look at a CRAPPY AI, let's talk about RTW, now that is an AI that doesn't know how to do anything at anywhere at anytime. lol (now I fully expect someone to stand up for RTW. haha)



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/27/2005 3:32:07 AM)

Whatever...

First of all, the CM series are as much "my game" as FPG. Second, assertions that the AI is "great" in the CM series would draw you a lot of heat on battlefron't forum. There, as in just about any other wargaming community, the long time players/fans will tell you PBEMs are where the challenge lies.

Unused assets are evident there when playing the AI, just as they are in this title, and that's why the comparison was made.



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/27/2005 3:50:47 AM)

Not much point in drawing put my involvement in this topic any further . Everyone agrees something needs doing. The only issue is to what extent. But despite whatever allusions some folks want to make, I've been honest in what I've seen. I just don't like staying in conversations where people hint I'm not telling the truth.

I like the game. I'll keep an eye out for the patch. I got some players willing to PBEM. So I guess I got what I need for now. See some of you guys later :)

Matt



ravinhood -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/27/2005 4:55:52 AM)

quote:

the long time players/fans will tell you PBEMs are where the challenge lies.


So, now you're saying I'm not a long time player and fan and I would't tell you that. ;)

Reason being, I've played human opponents not as good as the AI. So one can't just say the "human factor" is "always" the most challenging factor. Just like a great AI, you have to find "great human opponents" to give you a challenge.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/28/2005 1:22:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

the long time players/fans will tell you PBEMs are where the challenge lies.


So, now you're saying I'm not a long time player and fan and I would't tell you that. ;)

Reason being, I've played human opponents not as good as the AI. So one can't just say the "human factor" is "always" the most challenging factor. Just like a great AI, you have to find "great human opponents" to give you a challenge.


IRrc, you set the game up quite specifically to make the AI a challenging opponent in CMAK. Nothing wrong with that of course, but in an even odds battle, on balance, a human player will make a far more challenging opponent than an AI one. From what I've played of FG, the AI is just not a good enough opponent to allow a player to develop the necessary skills to take on another human. As such I've no intention of purchasing a copy until the AI is 'beefed up' quite a bit.



ravinhood -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/28/2005 4:18:59 AM)

quote:

but in an even odds battle, on balance, a human player will make a far more challenging opponent than an AI one.


That only really applies if you are playing someone of "equal" or "near equal" or "advanced" experience.

If I sit down and play a beginner (like my nephew) or beginning intermediate in experience, the word "challenge" does not apply. While it might be more "FUN" to play a human, challenge is not what I would find out of beginners or beginning intermediate players.

In cases of playing beginners or beginning intermediates I would get more challenge out of the AI on normal difficulty (equal units no handicaps).

There's people I'm not even a challenge for them to play me. Each person has a challenge level and an experience level.

The difference being that if one sticks with it long enough, humans have this ability to "learn and improve", where an AI doesn't. It will never be any more challenging than it's highest difficulty. Which for most AI's the highest difficulties are always overcoming the odds.

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you. ;) They said above the AI is going to be improved, so if this is your type of wargame, might as well support ole Matrixgames. Them and HPS and some Shrapnel games is about all we have left for "real wargames". So give em "your" money now. ;)



Adam Parker -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/28/2005 7:21:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you. ;)


I think your spirit is good but we gotta remember that the AI is broken for now. The helo and hq bugs/behaviors are very blatant one's to have missed. However, other companies have missed such obvious things too.

I think that Rob has engineered his AI with some potential genius if he can fix these other flaws. His AI is aggressive, territorially driven and capable of effective direct and indirect fire and assault combat.

Now as far as I am concerned, if he just gets the helos and hq's fixed, makes movement and fire more intuitive to look at and then gives players something to do as the AI fights itself in the resolution phases, his series has some legs yet.

Big if's maybe.

Adam.



themattcurtis -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/28/2005 3:35:12 PM)

Hey Adam --

I think two of your points require addressing and every indication is that they will be tackled (HQs and Helos).

But I think the other stuff is a matter of aesthetics and really not a "game breaker."

Movement seems intuitive to me -- the simplified nature of movement and the ability to change waypoints is nice. You can set as many waypoints as you want or let the game figure out the correct path for you. You can tweak movement to the point that units arrive where they're supposed to on the minute. I also do not have a problem with how fire is resolved.

Finally, in wego titles you issue orders establish SOP and sit back to watch what unfolds. Its the same in other titles -- which I won't name or everyone and their mother might come in and try to debate it -- but that's the whole part of the tension involved. While things are developing, you're powerless to affect them until the next Orders Phase comes up. So why would a player need to be able to do anything except watch while combat's being resolved? I see some issues that give me a headache or two (I really would like to see how I do against Hinds used by the AI), and easy enough to correct (in theory). I just don't see any huge Ifs.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: It is disappointing. (2/28/2005 8:07:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

So, you really should get FG and enjoy what challenge the AI does give you. ;) They said above the AI is going to be improved, so if this is your type of wargame, might as well support ole Matrixgames. Them and HPS and some Shrapnel games is about all we have left for "real wargames". So give em "your" money now. ;)


So many games, so little money[:D]

When the AI is up to 'training level' (i.e. when I can try different strategies and get roundly spanked when I screw up), then it's worth a purchase. If I bought it now it would just sit on my hard drive doing nothing, plus I would be sending the wrong message to the developers and publisher. But hey, when it's right for me I'll buy it.



z1812 -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/1/2005 1:39:28 AM)

Hi all,

The idea of the A.I. is not just a matter of having a game against the computer A.I.

1. The A.I. is quite important in H2H games where turn resolution is governed by the A.I.

2. The development and first stage testing of 3rd party scenarios is usually done against the A.I.

3. Many people like to generate scenarios that are played best against the A.I.

4. People develop basic skills for eventual contests against humans by playing the A.I.

Of course that is why A.I. is so important. Again I wish to stress that I really like the idea of this game and I am anxiously awaiting patch number 2.

Regards John



Adam Parker -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/1/2005 3:48:59 AM)

In a recent census the average family had 2.5 kids, 1.5 pets and 10.5 AI's. The AI's are sleeping where the pets used to and the pets are taking it out on the kids. The definition of a broken home now, is where 50% of a family's AI's don't work.



Real and Simulated Wars -> RE: It is disappointing. (3/1/2005 6:03:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

In a recent census the average family had 2.5 kids, 1.5 pets and 10.5 AI's. The AI's are sleeping where the pets used to and the pets are taking it out on the kids. The definition of a broken home now, is where 50% of a family's AI's don't work.


LOL, [:D]
Adam, that's very clever! Signature-caliber material.
Cheers,



Real and Simulated Wars -> The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/1/2005 8:35:35 PM)

Hello!
Nice thread.
Please take my comments with a grain of salt. I am not attacking anybody, just exchanging some opinions based on my personal experience with the game.
The challenge factor while playing NATO against the computer is very small. I still don't make up my mind if it is due to the WP AI, the way the game models both forces, the real nature of warfare at that time or else.
-WP AI. I have observed it moving towards my forces (no fog of war cheat for experimentation purposes) and I am in love with it. It moves battalions as a compact force and chooses axis of advance dynamically. I reckon that it should use helos and don't put HQs in harm's way, but that's being fixed. Besides, how much those changes will help the AI to win an scenario? I wish the WP would use it's fire support more aggressively, but again, would that help to beat me? I many times have tried to be critic on the AI's chosen approach avenues, but as many times I said: "Ey! I couldn't have chosen any better than the AI did!".
-FPG's combat model.
a) The simultaneous fire issue has been fixed. Still, an M1 platoon (that's 4 tanks!) can cause severe losses to a WP mechanized company (17+ vehicles, 4 being tanks, almost all having anti-armor capability). At the end of the firefight, a below-strength, low-morale WP company will retreat or yielded combat-unworthy, having caused only the loss of 2, maximum 3 M1 tanks. No AI in the world will ever be able to offer you a challenge if it has to manage such staggering losses.
b) Aggregated WP units. In the "Meeting of the Titans" scenario, the majority of the WP counters represent companies as opposed to the NATO counters which ussually represent platoons. It looks like FPG is an event-driven simulation. If so, every side will likely "get the attention" of the simulation engine in a proportional way to the number of counters it has on the map. If I am right with these considerations, the simulation engine will spend the same amount of time paying attention to 4 NATO tanks than to 17 WP vehicles. Even if I am wrong with that, the WP company still gets a handicap from its aggregated nature: all platoons of the WP company are forced to be in the same terrain, which reduces tactical flexibility, forced to get fire at the same time, forced to fire at the same time, etc. Aggregation-disaggregation is a tricky thing in warfare modeling and you would be surprised how different the results are when comparing a detailed to a slightly more aggregated model.
-Warfare in 1985. Was NATO that superior to WP? Will we ever know?
Cheers,



GreenDestiny -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/2/2005 12:00:15 AM)

I think you maybe on to something here Chelco.



John21b -> RE: The challenge factor or the lack of it in certain scenarios (3/2/2005 12:18:25 AM)

Soviet platoons would never operate (besides Recon plts) independently. Splitting the companies into platoons for the Soviets would allow way to much flexibility. Soviet Tk and Mot Inf platoon leaders were not authorized to talk on the Radio except to report losses etc.

John



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125