Sorry, long-term fan who's had enough

[RD Oddball]

The thing I hated about the CC2 AI was that you were always left with the impression it always knew exactly where your PIATs were and it would send it's panthers and a soldier banzai charge against them. Once they were wiped out it was game over and systematic hunting of the rest of your men. It would make a bee-line right for each location your men were on ambush regardless of how good the cover was. An artificial, artificial intelligence. They made a great effort and there were always moments of brilliance but it had it's shortcomings.

If I had to speculate, not specifically in reference to CC but any AI, (warning very uneducated-in-logic-based-systems and knowing-what's-possible opinion follows) I don't think it'll ever be possible to build an AI that gives the same kind of fight a human player gives. At the very least we're still decades away from computing power and algorithms that can do it on par with a human... reliably... every time in a fully transparent way that there's no possible way to discern it from a real human player. And when I say "same kind of fight a human player gives" I mean genuine risk and speculation based decision making with having relatively little information about what to expect of the environment in which those decisions are being made. On a level playing field with the human player has.

Maybe I'm off my rocker and it's more possible than I think but I just don't know how you can get something that doesn't have a soul or self-awareness to simulate that it does have those things without a crapload of computing power and years and years to write the code. I'd love to be proven wrong.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Have you tried the first update Pak40? There are quite a few customers who would disagree with your assessment of the AI. We're working on vehicle pathing and an update will be out soon. We want to make sure it's properly put through it's paces before releasing it so we won't be rushed into making it public before it's time. Continue to be patient.

Yes, I had to restart my campaign because I was kicking the Strat AI so badly before the patch came out. And thankfully the Strat AI effectively attacked me the second go around. However, the TacAI was still quite predictable. I agree with other posters that the TacAI is more agressive, it will attack when it's supposed to, however, being more aggressive is fruitless if you send infantry units out in the open in pointless banzai waves.

I've also seen the posts about the "pincher" moves that the AI makes but I'm quite convinced that this is a byproduct of the crappy deployment AI. For example: The deployment AI always deploys units around VLs. Usually, the AI will group them around two or three VLs. When this happens, sometimes the groups end up on opposite sides of the map. The game starts and these two groups will then attack towards the nearest VLs with respect to that group. This will give the appearance of a pincher movement but in reality both groups of units are attacking down either side of the map because the nearest VL is located in that direction.

Yes, I know you're working on Vehicle pathing but the point of my previous post was that this is the 10th Close Combat release and neither Atomic or Matrix/Strat 3 could ever get the vehicle pathing correct. After 10 releases do you really expect your customers to have patience?

Anyway, I know you guys are working on things and I'm glad you take the time to respond to upset customers, but this is getting old for some of us. We just want to play the games, unbroken and challenging, and with a reasonable degree of realism.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
If I had to speculate, not specifically in reference to CC but any AI, (warning very uneducated-in-logic-based-systems and knowing-what's-possible opinion follows) I don't think it'll ever be possible to build an AI that gives the same kind of fight a human player gives. At the very least we're still decades away from computing power and algorithms that can do it on par with a human... reliably... every time in a fully transparent way that there's no possible way to discern it from a real human player. And when I say "same kind of fight a human player gives" I mean genuine risk and speculation based decision making with having relatively little information about what to expect of the environment in which those decisions are being made. On a level playing field with the human player has.

Maybe I'm off my rocker and it's more possible than I think but I just don't know how you can get something that doesn't have a soul or self-awareness to simulate that it does have those things without a crapload of computing power and years and years to write the code. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Hey, I agree. We're not expecting the TacAI to pull off pincher moves and out duel us in a chess like battle. But, when I see squad after squad send itself across a wide open field in a Beeline to the nearest VL, I just shake my head. Especially since there was an alternate route that had cover and concealment - even if it wasn't as direct as the wide open field. And the pity of it is that one squad after the other made the same mistake. There's no trigger in the AI that says, "hey, that big field is deathtrap, let's try another route"

[squadleader_id]

Try the smaller sized maps...the attacking AI has improved (without any vetmod tweaks) with the latest LSA (beta)patch...nice work devs!
With the bigger maps...still hopeless and clueless!  Too bad most LSA maps are average to large [:(].
Playing as the attacker is still preferable...the crappy AI deployment, mindless manouvers and unnecessary piece-meal counterattacks can be annoying at times though.






I haven't had this much fun defending desperately vs attacking AI since CC5 Stalingrad Der Kessel and Battle of Berlin (with VetMod)...both mods featuring human wave attacks from Russian troops tricked into thinking that they're trucks [;)]
No human wave truck-men assaults in the above battle by the US AB troops...not perfect but not bad at all!

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Peterk1
Just a couple of ideas to bump up the percentage of satisfying match-ups against the AI which wouldn't require any super-sophisticated evaluation routines:

The AI could cheat a bit to check whether a charge on a flag is likely to work before the game starts just by checking the set-ups. Something like...

AI has 20 men heading towards position covered by 15 rifles and an MG in buildings, and two mortars waiting....UMMMM....probably not going to work. Don't do it. 30 versus 5 rifles and one mortar? That might work. Go for it. Some little rules of thumb could be used to cancel out the massacres before they even start. Yes, the AI would then be cheating, but if it results in a more satisfying game for the player, I would say go for it.

How about the AI doing it's set-up AFTER it sees the player's setup? Or at least just shifting a few units around to better counter what the player has indicated he intends to do via its setup? I have no idea if it's already doing that, but my gut feeling is no.

Other games have tried the cheating approach to make the AI a tougher opponent. I've never been a fan of the AI cheating. I want to have the glory of springing a surprise attack and get rewarded for my cunning. I remember playing Total Innihilation when it came out and noticed that the AI always knew where my radar "invisible" units actually were. I can't tell you how much that spoiled the whole concept of having invisible units to radar. What's the point if the AI can see them? To me that's about as frustrating as having an AI which charges across open fields guarded by machine guns. Having the AI cheat defeats the whole game IMO. The whole purpose of CC is to use strategy and tactics to achieve your goal. If the AI is going to know where you have your ambush set up then it takes a lot of the glory out of the game.

[Peterk1]

But it could be done in a random, unpredictable and fairly subtle manner just by varying the amount of AI shift in each game. Would you really blatantly notice it if one or two units were shifted from empty parts of the map to where your attack edge was? More likely, it would just feel like the AI is defending a little bit better.

[Platoon_Michael]

Jim:
So you don't see the graphic errors with the numerical #'s being inconsistent in any of the WAR maps?
The crappy CC5 color icons you introduced with the last patch for cohesion and fatigue and rest battlegroup?

You cant load up Butgenbach and see that the elevation goes from 25M to 5M then to 17M and has NO shading what so ever to depict that change in elevation.
You cant load up Baraque De Fraiture and CLEARLY see the hills and how they ONLY represent a change in elevation of 2M?

What about Champs?
You don't see how when I look at Butgenbach and see nothing in terms of shading and when you load Champs it has what appears to be massive hills with only a3.5M change in elevation?

Look at the elevations for every map you guys made (and edited)and more than not you will see that it appears to be a flat map when in reality after right clicking it has massive changes in elevations.

Look at Martelange and tell me why the southern VL is surrounded by Deep Water and tell me how I'm supposed to get past that if I don't catch it before deploying troops there.?

Did you know that after the last patch WAR can NOT LOAD any campaigns or Ops or even custom Battles in the Scenario Editor?
I'm more than willing to bet you cant fix the deployment bug and you guys know it.........don't ya?

What the heck are you people doing?


The AI?
I wish I could upload screen shots or videos.
because there is no way you guys would believe what the AI does.
Vehicles all grouped together and then cant move out of it.
Troops that deploy in the field when a house is just inches apart.


NO

What you want is for me and any other paying customer to point out what you couldn't/WOULDN'T do in the first place.



I wanted to buy LSA,because I like that campaign,but there's no way I will buy the same crap I already have just because it looks different and has a few new twists.


Why should I post in the WAR forums when you guys have clearly left that game behind?

[Platoon_Michael]

Night effects

All you guys did was plug that in and moved on
You didn't play any games to see what it looks like on Winter maps.

[RD Oddball]

Differences in aesthetic taste can't be considered errors. Sorry you don't appreciate the way some of the graphics look.

Re: numerical errors on maps - I'll assume you're talking about level numbers. If so point out the specific cases and they'll get fixed. We haven't found any otherwise they would've gotten reported and taken care of.

Re: Butgenbach - I honestly didn't know it had any problems to begin with. Now that you've given specifics it'll get reported and taken care of in turn.

Re: Baraque de Fraiture - Didn't know the problem existed and it got by the testers.. I do now and it'll get taken care of in turn as well.

Ditto Champs.

As I've mentioned elsewhere the improvements for AI and pathing will get back ported to TLD and WaR in turn.

Your perception that we've left WaR behind is incorrect.

Thanks for making the reports even though they're in the wrong forums. They'll get taken care of.

[Tejszd]

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael
Did you know that after the last patch WAR can NOT LOAD any campaigns or Ops or even custom Battles in the Scenario Editor?

To get all the battles/ops/campaigns to show up just add an * in the filename box.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Peterk1

But it could be done in a random, unpredictable and fairly subtle manner just by varying the amount of AI shift in each game. Would you really blatantly notice it if one or two units were shifted from empty parts of the map to where your attack edge was? More likely, it would just feel like the AI is defending a little bit better.

If it's only done with a couple units, then yes, it might improve things.

[D.Ilse]

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I have to agree with Michael. My patience is just about gone. I've bought every original CC game and two of the re-releases. NOTHING has been improved in the tactical engine since CC2:ABTF:

TacAI: just as stupid as it always was. Blindly sends it's troops to straight to the nearest VL only to be slaughtered.

Deployment AI: It's the exact same as it always was - HORRIBLE. AI always deploys around VLs with no consideration to cover or fields of fire.

Vehicle Pathing: WORSE than in CC2. I'm not just talking about the "can't go there" remarks, I mean the actual path that the vehicle takes once given a move order. Tanks on a road are given an order to move 40 meters straight up said road, but the driver decides that a scenic ride over a wall and through the woods is the path of least resistance. Honestly, Miss Daisy could drive better than that.

Instant Artillery: Wow, offboard artillery falls so quickly that there isn't enough time to realistically allow for the flight of the round, let alone the whole process of communication. And it's always perfectly accurate.

Instant On Board Mortars: The main reason why AT guns don't last more than one or two rounds after opening up. Mortar rounds land 2-3 seconds after the fire order is placed. The is completely unrealistic. The flight path of a mortar round takes at least 10 seconds alone, not to mention the whole process of adjusting the mortar to get the correct direction and distance.

LSA MGs: As if MGs in CC weren't powerful enough. I kind of liked it better when a stone wall could actually stop a MG42 bullet.

With exception of the last one, these are all legitimate complaints from your consumers for the past several re-releases and the original Atomic releases. However, like Atomic, Matrix has solely focused on re-releasing new games with new maps and not actually fixing their product. The only thing that has improved is the strategic campaign engine. This a damned shame since Close Combat's primary focus is, after all, about close combat.

Honestly, should I have any more patience after ten releases of Close Combat?

I agree with the off board assets. I've just gotten to the point of turning them off for H2H games for both sides..really there are too gamey, I remember when CC3 came out with it's Arty, I thought that was stupid and a waste of code.

[RD Oddball]

.

[Southernland]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

.

yup I know how you feel [;)]

[RD Oddball]

[:D] I was going to post a re-direct link to a WaR thread that I had a question about but I figured it out on my own.

[Q.M]

ORIGINAL: Southern_land

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

.

yup I know how you feel [;)]

+1

That quote......4 stars. I'm laughing so hard I got tears squirting outa my eyes. Sorry, must be a mid life crisis.

Carry on.

[Platoon_Michael]

Real funny

[Jorm]

ORIGINAL: squatter

I have bought every single Close Combat game since CC2, including all the recent remakes.

I realised that the AI was broken and unplayable by CC4 and havent tried to play against the AI since. I buy these games exclusively for multiplayer. Clearly, I understand that it is the best/only tactical real-time simulator out there.

This edition is no different: the AI is practically non-existent. In fact, on the strategic level it is completely Kaput.(see earlier threads)

On defence, the AI places rifle teams in the middle of roads when there are buildings on either side. Its units get up and run around rather than defending. On attack, it moves blindly towards any given victory location, hardly stopping to engage the defender. I think its about time you stopped claiming this game has a viable AI. It does not. Anyone who doubts this - try playing a few battles with 'always see enemy' selected, and watch what the AI does.

All the other problems that have bedevilled this game are present - vehicle pathing, unit deployent zones on top of each other, only 15 teams per side max, etc. Essentially, you, the developers are tweaking the data for each release, but are unbable to change the hard code beneath. You are releasing mods - very good mods, I'll give you - as full price games.

I understand the need to support developers in niche markets, but it's getting ridiculous to rely on the same old customers like me to shell out full price to download massively flawed tweakings of 12-year old software.
I just paid nearly £40 to download this, like I paid to download The Longest Day, Wacht Am Rein, and Cross of Iron before it. Each is utterly unplayable as a single player game, only valid as a multiplayer game with significant house rules and scenario modification.

My point is, I am feeling a little exploited right now, like my loyalty has been tested to the end. You shouldnt be offering discounts on previous games to people who havent bought a CC game before as you are, but discounts on the new editions for those that have invested 100s of dollars already on the previous releases, each one as flawed as the last!!

And my secondary point, trying to salvage as much multiplayer value as possible, can we have more information on how purchase points are assigned to battlegroups in battlemaker? And how, exactly, does stacking affect how many teams can be selected from each battle group? Is it better to have a larger unit as the frontline supported by a smaller one? Or vice versa? The manual says that having stacked battlegroups 'MAY' mean you get extra team slots. What are the parameters affecting 'MAY' in this case?

Third point: why continue with the absurd divisional level strategic map, and squad level tactical map, as if the fate of divisions is decided by a skirmish between two platoons?

Surely the sensible way to take the game is to simulate something like a battalion vs battalion battle on the strategic map, with companies or platoons as units of maneuvre. Then the tactical battles are actually fought between the units represented on the strategic map, rather than absurd, minute abstractions of themselves.

fantastic post

i would also like to add im sick of the BORG spotting for the AI.
I did not purchase this manifestation of the CC series but have ALL of the others.

[z1812]

I stopped purchasing the CC series after COI and CCMT. Mostly in view of the issues squatter has identified.

I do wish there were some fundamental changes in the approach to CC.

For instance, if a turned based version was possible then PBEM would be available. Perhaps a version where it could be played real time or turn based.

During scenario design it would be wondeful to be able to give some direction to opposing units.

I would love to spend some money on a new or re-issued CC game. But I will not until some substantial changes are made.

This is a great game series. Hopefully something more imaginative and creative can be done with it.

Regards john

[STIENER]

holey crap......sure is a bunch of pissed off CC customers here!!! dont know how i missed this battle! [ god my syntax and spelling is gonna take a beating again eh MICK ]

sure looks like the matrix lads arent really listening are they.....LMAO....its pathetic really. altho i have to admit the AI is supposed to be better than it was at 1st, but it still blows....its a waste of time. H2H is the only way to enjoy this game, but you cant really enjoy the game H2H because the a/t guns are a joke and the mortor rules the game. but matrix wont try to fix it for us. not enough of us vouced our concern.
what i think happend is a bunch of the CCérs in this post said "ive had enough"and went somewhere else..........so now we cant get an a/t gun and morotr fix because no one will voice there concerns about it.

my god this is frustrating isnt it.......we play test it...they ignore us....well dont ignore us totally.....they sometimes say ..no we dont think it needs fixing, but if you can get another 30 or 40 CCérs to say it needs fixing we might get around to it...that and "but keep posting BUGS for us and we'll look at it". most of the time we dont even know if they know and are looking at it, because theres no reply form the matrix dudes.
i think i said i wasnt going to do this again.....i guess i had a relapse [:(] too bad

oh ya...on a positive note.......the game does have some cool options that i really like, too bad the rest of the game has to catch up