Does this go beyond CC5's AI and game play?

[MarkShot]

A few years back when Matrix was getting ready to release EYSA, I got interested in that game.

EYSA was described to me as the 3D heir to the legacy of the CC series. Now, the CC series was something I was unfamiliar with, since I was a flight sim nut when CC was considered main stream gaming.

At the time, EYSA was being developed I had given up flight simming and gotten heavy into CM. So, I dug my copy of CC3 out of the basement (I had bought it, but never really understood or appreciated ground combat). Furthermore, I ordered a map CD set for CC3 from CSO. I bought bargain copies of CC4/5 and besides giving CC3 a spin, I played CC4/5 with the vet mods.

Well, I have to say that I just wasn't too impressed with CC. I liked the concept greatly and I thought that the top down art and UI held up very nicely even by today's standards. However, my problem was that I don't PBEM or TCP. I play SP. I just found the AI even with the mods very lacking. I found AFVs spinning senselessly. I found troops (if not using the vet mods) doing a silly crawl of death across open ground. I found the AI sitting in place for 13 of 15 minutes and then the remaining two minutes doing a human wave attack. The CC4 Vet mods reminded me of most poor AI compensating mods ... meaning that the mod is designed to overwhelm the player by superior numbers and superior weapons. So, the Germans teams would simply swarming and for the first half of the battle with little for you to do but give ground. There was some mortar modded into some gruesome nebelwerfer that tore buildings to shreds.

However, CC5 by comparison was relatively passive. Fights were non-fights.

When I inquired on CSO, this is generally what I was told:

(1) CC2 had the best gameplay/AI experience. It is possible that the AI wasn't any really better, but the lack of armor focused the game on what is was designed for; infantry modeling. Also, the smaller CC2 maps just made the AI look better.

(2) If you really want a good CC experience, then you have to get online and play a human. Don't expect much from the AI.

---

So, here I am. Is there really any major change in the AI and game play behavior from what was in CC5-Legacy?

If I am a Combat Mission player used to playing custom designed scenarios against the AI (mainly as the attacker) is the random/dynamic game play of this new release going to do it for me?

Thanks.

Disclosure: My avatar says "beta", but I am a beta for Panther Games and am simply a regular customer when it comes to this offering.

[Renato]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Is there really any major change in the AI and game play behavior from what was in CC5-Legacy?

Not really major. I always play Elite against a Recruit AI and did not ever succeeded in not achieving a major victory in any Operation or Campaign. Now and then I lose a battle.

That said, some improvements were made in Wacht am Rhein and The Longest Day. The AI seems a little more refrained in human waves attacks, apparently is able to mount flanking attacks, doesn't stubbornly defend any Victory Location, has the flair to unexpectedly reconquer lost positions.

I must add that the dev support is extraordinary.

The main flaws (as always) are the AI and player's initial setup and the strategic AI. I know they are difficult points, but who knows what will happen in future releases?

Anyway, after so many years, I've found again the pleasure to play the CC system.

By the way, I wonder how you can play so much a Stock Exchange game in these difficult times. I have had enough of the real thing.[:)]

[MarkShot]

Thanks for the CC info. I guess I'll stick with CM.

I've gone back to play CMBB/CMAK after three years. The great thing about getting old is that you can go back a replay scenarios and without remembering anything about the enemy setup! If you get old enough, then what's old is new again!

I guess you saw my 1830 threads over at the WG. Well, I don't really trade in the market. My wife does. I just find 1830 a great game.

Of my lifetime, it is the single best PC strategy game I know of.

[Erik Rutins]

Mark,

IMHO the Longest Day AI is significantly less "passive" than the original release, but that's just my two cents. I'd say it's better overall and the campaign is quite a challenge given the goal of achieving the D-Day objectives. Some of the battles are extremely tough. In any game system of course, human opponents will give more of a challenge. As much as I love CM, it's AI is nothing to write home about either, but as in CC it does what it needs to do in most scenarios. I'm sure you'll get more feedback on this question as well, this is just my opinion.

Regards,

- Erik

[MarkShot]

Thanks, Erik.

One thing that really impressed me about the legacy CC series I played for a while was the maps/UI. Most old games really look like cr*p at higher resultion on new hardware, but I thought the CC artwork gave a fine accounting of itself. Way better than its age. I can only imagine what people thought of it when it was in its prime.

Well, I am sure the AI is probably improved over legacy as you had access to the source. If I recall correctly, TTT got rid of that crawl of death in the Vet mods by converting some table driven behavior for infantry and turning them into AFVs. This made them sprint across open areas.

---

I saw that the Longest Day plays in a Window. What is the max resolution it is supporting? If the resolution was boosted, was anything done to englarge the artwork and text for easier viewing on high resolution displays?

I think as an aging gamer, eye friendly interfaces have become an increasingly important issue to me. Of course, there is nothing like cramming every last shred of information in to a huge flat panel display, but you have to wonder if the developers are former fighter pilots or snipers when they start using font point sizes that are only a single pixel wide!

[dodger bullet]

the a.i. is good. not cc2 good, but CCTLD's the next best. hope it'll get better with the coming patch too, hope the devs can deny/confirm this.

night battles are a blast also, and i do loose a couple of times. setting: me: elite, 30 minutes/ a.i.: recruit, always follow orders.

i agree that cc series has aged well, but the only little niggle is the a.i. and that seems to be amended for each coming installments.

[Misty99]

I was a flight simmer too (IL2 online, EAW). But I lost interest, maybe Im too old (50+).
Now I prefer wargaming, but not the boardgaming style games like the SSG ones with hexes and turns.
I had the first 2 original CC games a few years ago. I then bought CoI and now Im downloading CCTLD.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
I saw that the Longest Day plays in a Window. What is the max resolution it is supporting? If the resolution was boosted, was anything done to englarge the artwork and text for easier viewing on high resolution displays?

It will support up to whatever your monitor can support, in either full screen or windowed mode. On my 1680x1050 the interface is still very legible, but YMMV.

Regards,

- Erik

[MarkShot]

Former EAW flyer and author here too.

It wasn't my old spirit that grounded me, but arthritis and aging joints. However, that opened up so many new worlds of game genres for me. That's what led me to Panther Games/Matrix Games.

I must say that ever since I gave up flying and switched to wargaming, my PC gaming hobby has become a lot less expensive than it was.

I no longer feel that my PC is already getting too old as soon as I read my credit card number to the sales agent over the phone!

[Shaun Wallace]

Hia All,
 
Having been involved in CC since way back when and working and developing the military versions (CC:RAF / CCM / CCAT / CCJTAC) as well as the commercial releases, there have been many changes in the AI coding and if you go back to playing the old stock vanilla CC5 and then to WaR or TLD you wll find many differences in the AI. CC has always been very different to almost every other game in terms of AI and having an AI that reacts, has morale, cohesion and tons of other factors! NexGen CC will fix many issues, we are and have been working on the old codebase and when that changes you will see major AI changes. CM and CC are very different, both are WW2, but one is real time while the other uses an abstraction. EYAS was again a very different game and having been involved in the dev of that game I can say that the AI was very little different than in vanilla CC.
 
There are some interesting papers and dev talks about how the CC AI was built and developed, if you are interested I will dig them up!
 
Cheers - S

[MarkShot]

Shaun,

Great to see you again! Yes, you were the guy who got me interested in EYSA and sent me searching for its roots with the CC series. Yes, certainly EYSA's genetic fingerprint inherited from CC was clear with the those spinning Shermans!

Yes, I would love to see any papers you have on the game development and AI. My background is systems development, UIs ... all that stuff. However, I have no game AI exposure.

It's great to hear that the AI will be upgraded as this new generation of CC evolves. I think that is the one area where people have issues. The top down 2D doesn't bother me at all.

CM versus CC: CM is like playing Combat Chess. A 30 minutes fight can take four hours. The advantage of real time systems such as CC is that they capture the tempo and ferocity of combat. Of course, the problem CC has is with scaling/complexity/time, since the player is making decisions in real time which would probably be distributed across multiple people in RL.

Great seeing you again!

[RD Oddball]

Yes I concur.  Good to see you around Shaun!

[Renato]

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace

There are some interesting papers and dev talks about how the CC AI was built and developed, if you are interested I will dig them up!

I would be much interested. Thank you very much!

[Shaun Wallace]

Hia Guys,

Send me a PM with your email and I will send you what I have on the original AI development!

Hey, good to be back, had an extended bout of several illness's but am back in the saddle now

Man EYSA seems an AGE ago now lol!

Cheers - Shaun

[Renato]

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace

Send me a PM with your email and I will send you what I have on the original AI development!

Already done. Cheers.

[xe5]

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace
There are some interesting papers and dev talks about how the CC AI was built and developed, if you are interested I will dig them up!

I see quite a bit of improvement to the strat & tac AIs. Love to hear The Bloods!'s take on what's been done for TLD.

But...the AI deploys and moves in the open too often. Too often its pathing is a relentless press forward into recent, known enemy kill zones. And the late-battle general advance (aka the '5 on the clock' follies) quickly became predictable.

Default deploy should invariably be in bldg/hedge/tree. AI unit pathing should always 'tack' thru covered terrain. When engaged while moving in the open, it should dash to the nearest cover (w/ the apparent 'seeking cover' cover bonus) and avoid moving thru that location for at least 3 min. The '5 o'clock' folly should vary from '7 -3' and favor advancing units in the rear before assaulting w/ units oat the front. In general it needs to shoot more and move less, making movement toward gaining LOS on known enemy units as much a priority as movement toward VLs.

[Tejszd]

ORIGINAL: xe5

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace
There are some interesting papers and dev talks about how the CC AI was built and developed, if you are interested I will dig them up!

I see quite a bit of improvement to the strat & tac AIs. Love to hear The Bloods!'s take on what's been done for TLD.

But...the AI deploys and moves in the open too often. Too often its pathing is a relentless press forward into recent, known enemy kill zones. And the late-battle general advance (aka the '5 on the clock' follies) quickly became predictable.

Default deploy should invariably be in bldg/hedge/tree. AI unit pathing should always 'tack' thru covered terrain. When engaged while moving in the open, it should dash to the nearest cover (w/ the apparent 'seeking cover' cover bonus) and avoid moving thru that location for at least 3 min. The '5 o'clock' folly should vary from '7 -3' and favor advancing units in the rear before assaulting w/ units oat the front. In general it needs to shoot more and move less, making movement toward gaining LOS on known enemy units as much a priority as movement toward VLs.

Sounds like good suggestions for the AI to be improved...