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.
Heres some quotes from others in same thread..
Quote:
I am actually liking the new infantry behavior of canceling the move and running for cover.
uggghhhhhhhhh.......... I really hope nobody from S3T, Blackhand, Matrix or Destineer... or whomever is responsible doesnt take that line seriously.
Quote:
Sholdn't the flares flicker in reality?
The flare and light effects suck.
Quote:
what I'd really like to know is that do the matrix people actually play this game in Single Player mode at all?
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.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:59 am Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
Mooxe I'm surprised that you, even with your bias against the the re-releases, would point to that post as something that had a lot of points you agree with....
Not much thought to the post at all.... Especially with the recommendations...
1. Make AI relentlessly move towards victory locations or seek ceasefire.
That would be fun to have charge straight ahead....
2. Make timer not stop when Alt+TABbing out of game.
Already can be done if desired by running the game in windowed mode
3. Give a Retreat/surrender button.
Having the button in CC3 was okay as you could save some men, but if you are just going to surrender might as well charge with them and get them killed to the end battle. They are gone both ways. in
4. Give a "Force Cease-Fire option"
The opposing AI or H2H player you think should determine when they need/want to end the fight. I have had the AI truce. He probably has his men sit in a great defensive spot lets the AI lose some squads and wonder why the supposedly worthless AI just doesn't the rest of the men/squads in front of the guns. But it is alright for him not move his men as they might get killed....
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
Hi Mooxe,
After every new game release, there is always the customary bashing of the AI, and the game engine, sometimes accompanied with the usual condescending remarks about the campaign abstractions.
I have statyed out of it for WAR, TLD, and now LSA. But usally the end result is that Single Player gaming becomes the focus of the ridicule, since some of the shortcomings can be elimated or offset through Multiplayer gaming.
My experiences in Single Player for the past several years are all CCMT based, where Single Player mode can be enhanced via the superior game editor and other features as described below. These features were new and different and they collectively DID make the AI better. I make comparisons of CCMT to CC5, the last game I owned prior to CCMT.
Matrix User said "I am actually liking the new infantry behavior of canceling the move and running for cover. "
This is what happens in CCMT as well. This is one of the more realistic changes in soldier behavior since CC5. As one can only imagine, this feature adds real value to the defense, or a defender, particulary an invisible defender. Since the AI, is usually the defender, in my games, it is the primary recipient of this value.
I have also, seen Humvees, do more or less the same thing, by cancelling their move and returning fire, and view this behavior as equally realistic.
I will also argue, that part of the dislike for CCMT, are the lethality of the weapons, and the AI shooting up the Human players squads, when the human player tries to Rambo along.
Matrix User said "what I'd really like to know is that do the matrix people actually play this game in Single Player mode at all? "
My experience, from CC5 days, was that the campaign system may or may not produce tactical battles that create fun for a Single Player, since fun can be defined in many different ways. I found, the Campaign System boring for CC5, Single Player or otherwise, but that is just me.
With an Editor like you have in CCMT, you can create battles, where the AI will WIN EVERY TIME YOU PLAY. Because of the new soldier behaviors, an AI, on the defense, with a similar battlegroup, will generally win the game.
If a player derives enjoyment from the social aspects of Multiplayer, then Single Player mode will never suffice.
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
A very measured response Stwa, and there is much in what you say.
I will be amazed if anything significant (if anything at all) is ever done with the CC Core as far as AI goes. It is like a domino disaster waiting to happen. It will take a rewrite for anything significant and comprehensive to happen.
I too find the Strategic Games unappealing. It resolves to a method to get from one battle to another where the fun is.
The Community has got to switch off any expectation they may have regarding the Core AI System. Maybe a tweak here or there. Maybe.
Interesting about the run for cover. It is of course perfectly vallid behaviour, and suits a Close Combat environment modelling 'modern' behaviour. However, it does prevent other perfectly vallid behaviours, which is sometime frustrating. An extreme illustrattion of this might be massed Russian charges. Ok, with only 15 Teams it is difficult to get a 'mass' like that, but the point is you would end up having to furiously click away repeatedly to keep the Squads moving.
Unfortunately, I see adding such behaviours as equally difficult to add to the Core (though I accept my ignorance at that level).
At the end of the day, CC is what Kieth Zabaloui said it was, 'soldiers in a sandbox', and still remarkably good considering anything else that is available.
The Community has got to switch off any expectation they may have regarding the Core AI System. Maybe a tweak here or there. Maybe.
Which makes CC worthless as a single player tactical game.
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.
Also, there's that retarded moment, when artillery shells fall and I get informed about exact enemy positions because the game shows me dead bodies (I'm talking about CCMT here, I hope it got fixed in new releases).
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
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.
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.
For insterested readers, another related discussion between Stwa and Therion. The subject:
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
I've spent the past 2 months playing Company of Hero's daily and have a hard time sometimes a very hard time beating the AI set on normal.
When I read their forums I see people complain that they can beat the AI on Hard but when they go to Expert the games usually kicks there butt.
As with any GAME the only way to get a hard AI is to stack the game to the AI's favor.As is the case with COH.
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
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?
So we resolve to playing 'against the odds'. Or H2H.
Quote:
but if you are just going to surrender might as well charge with them and get them killed to the end battle. They are gone both ways
And what would these soldiers do if they thought they were just being used as cannon fodder? Your average grunt would not be impressed. All this illustrates is that CC is a game and is played as such. If your life really depended on it, I am sure you would all review very carefully your options...
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
I think if I can get either WAR into LSA or even better a patch that puts all the features from LSA into WAR I will be happy.
Once that's done I feel I can possibly work on the A.I. to make it a little better.
TT did it I don't see why I can't.
I think if I can get either WAR into LSA or even better a patch that puts all the features from LSA into WAR I will be happy.
Once that's done I feel I can possibly work on the A.I. to make it a little better.
TT did it I don't see why I can't.
I think you love WAR and all about Ardennes in general, have you try this?
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
Quote:
TT did it I don't see why I can't.
Them's fighting words! That's the Spirit.
If TT managed to tweak any of the Core Code, he must have done it with some inside Intel. I am not convinced he did that, but I could be wrong. I think it's an expreme case of stacking all the odds against the Human Player and weighting everything in the AI's favour, but I haven't analysed the changes, so it's just a guess...
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
TT didn't change any programming code.
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.
Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map.... Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....
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.
Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map.... Though there is the down that these infantry set as guns and vehicles will not go inside buildings....
I would imagine that one could have one MG Team codded as gun to stay put then have another team codded normally to be placed in houses.
The only problem I see with that is the amount of BG_Unit Icons the game has.
Only other problem is im sure it's still not enough to make some people happy.
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.
Not sure if it was TT or someone else 1st but another thing people have done to the make the AI tougher is to set the AI for a squad to guns and vehicles. An MG team coded as gun once deployed barely moves while another team coded as a half track charges around the battle map....
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Nice Rant
One thing CC has always lacked was a True change in forces depending on what setting you used.
Seems to me if changing the setting to requite for the AI they should have more Panthers/Tigers/larger teams etc etc.
But if I play as the Germans and set it to Veteran I should have no Tigers,smaller teams,very few Panthers.but yet give me Stugs AFV's
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
