Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem

#21: Re: Nice Rant Author: Spinlock,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:25 pm
—
Who honestly expected the AI to be any better??

All the re-releases so far have basically just been a mod of a previous version. If there were any significant improvements that could be made to the gameplay, it would have already happened.
I don't have LSA, but If i do get it, i'm going in eyes wide open that its more or less cc5 with the cc2 mod.
Kudos to Matrix for still generating revenue from an old (and seemingly intractable) pile of sourcecode.

#22: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:49 pm
—

Quote:

If there were any significant improvements that could be made to the gameplay, it would have already happened.

Yes, you bet...

When liasing with the programmer during my time with CoI, we looked pretty hard at the pros and cons. The cons won hands down I regret to say. Not to say that it would be impossible to do. Of course it's not impossible, but for a load of reasons, it's impractical. I suppose if the Source Code was ever released into the Public Domain (dream on by the way....), then somebody might be bothered to hack it until something worked, but commercially, it's a non starter.

I too will get LSA sometime. I am sure it will be what I expect, but the new Campaign with all the new maps and other bits will make it worthwhile for me, and it's another release from the stable.

#23: Re: Nice Rant Author: southern_land,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:05 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2523575

Have to agree with many points. Boils down to this..... version 11+/- of Close Combat without any real gameplay advances = upset customer. But we have new maps and some new strategic functions hacked in, but gameplay is the same.

How could they? Single player Close Combat is incredibly borring, single player beta testing out of the question. I suppose when its the same team beta testing for the past few years, they can't form an objective look to the game anymore. All they do is hunt for bugs, they are already resigned to accept Close Combat as it is.

So you agree do you mooxe? Does that mean you have bought the game? Torrented the game already? or are Canada's version of men who stare at goats? And talking about objective opinions take a look in the mirror. Even the terminology you use in your latest vitirolic spiel indicates the one eyed way you look at the new releases "some new strategic functions hacked in", they were programmed in, they work well and are a serious advance. If you can't visulize the value of double stacking units on the strat map, or setting entry locations for single map battles then you sir, are the hack

Now that was a nice rant!

#24: Re: Nice Rant Author: Spinlock,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:02 pm
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

If you can't visulize the value of double stacking units on the strat map .... you sir, are the hack
Now that was a nice rant!

You can stack 2 units on the strat map. So that means you get 15 * 2 Units in the next battle?
That's the point of stacking.

#25: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:21 pm
—
No, in LSA it means you can

1. pass through without having to disband or retreat a BG

2. You can have BG supported by the second BG... thus being able to use some of it's teams.

3. Your small BG may become a larger BG by increasing the number of teams available to a maximum of 15

4. You may be able to attack a map from differnt directions at the same time.

#26: Re: Nice Rant Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:23 pm
—
as to point #3

if before you stacked you had 6 teams v 6 teams for the opposing BG's... you may be now able to outnumber your opposition as you say... that is the point of stacking and is available in LSA.

#27: Re: Nice Rant Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:53 pm
—

final-drive wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

He made the AI side have a huge advantage by editing the data in favour of the AI. Example; armour thickness, damage, weapon range, speed, etc.

AFAIR, he didn't give any advantage to the AI in armour thickness and weapon's performance data. Only the amount of soldiers (and hence weapons) per team was higher for the AI.

TT did change the weapons data...many weapons of the AI side were modded to be more deadly and accurate.
Personally I don't like it...give the AI more soldiers, more weapons, more experienced troops and commanders...but tweaking the AI weapons is overkill! :)

final-drive wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....

Indeed, but for some reason this was less of a problem in CC4 when compared to CC5.

Cheers

AFAIK infantry coded as guns and vehicles works well in stock CC5. As long as most of the maps are mostly rural areas (with small buildings) the VetMods should work fine.
They don't work that well in urban maps of course...in PJ's SDK and SOC...he only coded sellect infantry units as vehicles so that some infantry units can enter the huge Stalingrad factories/buildings.
Salhexe's VetMod for Battle of Berlin works well eventhough there are maps with huge buildings on the mod.

#28: Re: Nice Rant Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:56 pm
—
Dund's counter-rant

That's from another thread on Matrix. The post is actually inspired by a discussion Mooxe and I had the night before.

As I state there, I think the guys at Matrix are doing a good job, however they know their limitations, but I think need more pushing to let go of the modded CC5 engine. Yes they've added some interesting features, but the problem is the engine is not streamlined for all the weight that has been added to each different version.

I'd like to start over. What needs to be in CC and what can go away forever....build an engine with that in mind (which might cost a bit up front could then be used for another decade and be much better at achieving great game play). If anything with the economy being so bad, it might actually be easier to pick up programmers at a lesser rate than normal. But then again I don't know a thing about professional gaming development.

Just hoping for the best.

#29: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:45 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

While Therion has routinely arrived at good gaming suggestions in the past, sometimes he seems to make absolutes from purely anecdotal observations of single games.

Quote:

Even on defence, the AI is shit, enemies tend to crawl out of cover and get caught in the open. There's nothing as frustrating as setting up a map with trenches and buildings, with VLs on places with highest cover only to find out that the enemies have crawled out into the open and half of them didn't survive the preparatory fires and then get killed pretty quickly by anything because they lack cover.

It's not an absolute. I write "tends to" because sometimes they manage to actually be in buildings.
Also, it's not purely anecdotal observations of single games. I have reproduced the problem tens of times, both in different missions and it reliably repeats itself when I try to play these missions multiple times.

Stwa wrote (View Post):

So, I disagree with him on his points, as I have in the past. The AI, exhibits a range of behaviors, no doubt based on circumstances related to each game. I have seen the AI camp in buildings, and camp in trenches. For modern conflicts, some seperation in the fire teams is desirable, and AI seems to attempt that.

The AI has deployment phase in which it can reach all the separation that it wants.

vonB wrote (View Post):

Quote:

As with any GAME the only way to get a hard AI is to stack the game to the AI's favor

As is likely to be the case in any game production. The development of a comprehensive and competent (and I haven't even started on inspirational...) Tactical AI would be prohibitively costly. The best we could hope for is a simple solid AI (even that's a challange!). However, eventaully a player becomes familiar with the behaviour of the AI and the challange diminishes.

I even wonder how appealing a game with a good AI would be to some (if not many) players. To get beaten consistently will soon become tiresome. Ther has to be at least a prospect of winning, as well as some real victories to keep the ongoing enthusiasm. This si human nature.

What is most tiresome is the stupidity of the AI, doing things that even a numpty might not choose to do. Is beating a stupid person worthy of the challange?

From my experience, I would say that a really good AI would need 3 components:
1. "Animal Instincts" - basically awareness and reacting to stuff - squads moving in leaps and bounds, firing at sources of enemy fire, ambushing, covering from fire, etc. etc. etc.
One of the reasons why Firefight has a challenging AI is that when player unit starts firing, it attracts suppressive fire from enemy units and vice versa.
2. Organization - units function as units. Games need to simulate unit organization.
3. "Human Intelligence" that would be simulated by scripting. I think that good scenarios require extensive scripting by people with knowledge of real military tactics and military history.
One thing that I thought about would be that scenario could have literally tens of plans that would be activated randomly, marked good positions for units for attacking from different directions, all taking unit organization into account.
For example, scenario makers could mark optimal positions for every unit in platoon attack, routes of approach, etc.

I wonder if it would be possible to make AI use battle drills...

Then there's also a question of not giving the player unfair advantages - for example being able to see dead bodies is an unfair advantage. Being able to see muzzle flashes while the AI isn't, is an unfair advantage.

#30: Re: Nice Rant Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:10 am
—
My 2 loonies worth

I like LSA because of the improvements, the main one being a MISSION. In TLD etc the only mission is to kill all enemy and capture the map. It gets repetitive. In COI I saw the first map where the timer was set to 3? minutes and you had no VL's so you had to get off your butt and take a VL or else you lost the map. LSA continues this by making the bridges a priority, NOT the troops.

Next - as with ALL versions, if you are playing the AI, you MUST choose the attacking team. DO NOT play LSA as Germans and expect a good chalenge. (Exemption - CC4 Vet BoB)

Speaking of the famous Vet BoB. There were data changes, look at the Shreks in the US vet sub mod against stock CC4, the damage and range are cranked WAY up.

#31: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 1:33 am
—

southern_land wrote (View Post):

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I suppose if it was 2002, those would be serious advances. Btw, nice use of red font, the addition of the red font was a serious advance in forum software. Now please work on not using the same paint tiles for concrete, I am tired of seeing the same cracks in the cement every 40m. mmmk?

#32: Re: Nice Rant Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:12 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

I suppose if it was 1999, those would be serious advances.

Fixed.

#33: Re: Nice Rant Author: final-drive,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:50 am
—

squadleader_id wrote (View Post):

Tejszd,
Squadleader,
Grunt,

I stand corrected. Made a quick comparison between CC4 Vetbob Panzerschreck data for US and Axis play, and they're indeed different: more deadly for the German AI.

On the thread's main topic: in WaR and Tld, to me it seemed the AI had improved. Without suddenly becoming some formidable opponent (it never will), it could do things it didn't do in CC4 or CC5 (better use of smoke, less crawl of death, some smarter moves,...). Now in Lsa for some reason it seems less apparent, a bit like a step back, but that might also be caused by map and VL lay-out, along with the team number limits. A pitty; hopefully something can still be fixed.
But the way some people get completely emotional in their reactions nowadays, I don't get it. To do so either they must be complete newbies having a hard time understanding CC, or must be old-time grunts with some account to settle for who knows what reason. Yet, the new versions have come with some nice new features and the developers deserve support for that.

Cheers

#34: Re: Nice Rant Author: salhexe,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:23 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.

Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode

WAR (with the latest patch), TLD and now LSA in the Options offer windowed mode. LSA screen shot below;[/quote]

is true Thanks, I guess can not do it on CC5 Sad

#35: Re: Nice Rant Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:04 pm
—
I'm not asking for the AI to be Rommel, I just want the enemy units NOT to act like those UK soldiers spiked on LSD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-rWnQphPdQ

#36: Re: Nice Rant Author: vonB,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:28 pm
—
That would be my first desire. Not to make the AI 'cleverer', just not so stupid. This in itself would make it a tougher opponent...

#37: Re: Nice Rant Author: flick,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 5:48 pm
—
Panzer general manages to throw troops in the right direction, that's from 1995 or so?

#38: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:18 pm
—
Here is a mission that if you put on a 20 or 30 minute limit, the AI WINS EVERY TIME NO MATTER WHAT.

The AI HAS LESS STUFF in this mission.

ARMY has some Strykers, Predator Teams, and basic Fire Teams.

AI has insurgent infantry and machine guns ONLY.

AI WINS EVERY TIME.

The AI did not crawl out of any secure positions, it only moved to take the objectives, then camped in cover waiting for ARMY.

#39: Re: Nice Rant Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:58 am
—
Post mission, I'll see if I can beat it.

#40: Re: Nice Rant Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:10 am
—
Nice try ... you wont,

You don't play CCMT. The visibiliy rules will drive you crazy. The AI guys SEE YOU, but you dont SEE THEM.

Thats the main problem.

Plus, its Single Player, so your Network Connection cannot help you.

You gave up on CCMT in disgust, because of the weapons lethality.

You have already been there and already done that, and you did not like it.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page : Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next :| |: Page 2 of 9