Mines

[JET]

Would it be possible to introduce anti-vehicle and anti-personel mines into the game?

Apart from causing casualties, when used in large numbers they also served to slow the advance of attacking forces and in some cases effected the defending forces movement.

They could also help to balance a scenario where defending forces are outnumbered and/or of lesser quality than the attacking force.

I would assume they would effect morale, act to reduce movement and produce casualties in accordance with mine densities, type of troops clearing them and the type of terrain.

Would it be possible to use a percentage of mines in an area to regulate effect of mines combined with above factors with additional variation for side who laid minefield who could know where mines have been laid?

Perhaps time and quality of preparation (prepared, hasty etc.) for laying of mines could also be included.

 

[Kurt]

Hi JET , its been requested at various times in the past , its on Dave's to do list ( which is long ) . I too would like mines and mine laying / removing .

 

[john connor]

In some of the cauldron and African scenarios there are minefields. They don't kill, you can't lay them and you can't clear them - because that isn't implemented yet, as Kurt notes - but they do slow units effectively.

Dave and the other two coders are concentrating now on sequential tasking, mounted ops and, once these are done, an EF pack. The target is first half of next year for all that, as I think Dave has said in here. After that we can petition him, I would have thought, for other functionality. For me, top of the list - absolute top of the list (in fact, I would want it more than mounted ops, I think, but it's a close thing) - would be tweaking the AI so as to allow better line type defences (including the use of engineering options like minefields and AT ditches etc), and also to allow more concentrated, powerful AI attacks on key objectives. These two will, I think, really effect, especially, any EF operations we're given. In addition, and ideally, an ability to script the AI in Scenmaker. After that I would want repair and replacements, also crucial in longer EF operations, especially repair of armour.

As a money maker, though, I would have thought a PBEM capability would be very successful. At the moment most people play against the AI, and though that's fun, it's so far removed from the fun of playing H2H that, even with Dave's AI focus, it pales in comparison. Playing this game H2H is a real blast. BUT, few people (me included) have time to arrange (often across time zones) the kind of concentrated dedicated time needed to find and play a scenario REAL TIME H2H, which is the only option at the moment. Games with PBEM end up being played, I think, a significantly greater amount H2H than those with only real time options (because it's just so much more convenient) and the H2H focus takes some of the pressure off things like AI development, because we wouldn't need these line defence tweaks, or a need to change AI strategic attack planning if we were playing a human, who would do all these things anyway.

There's no harm in asking, but, as I said, none of this is going to happen (Dave has said) until sequential tasking and mounted ops are implemented.

Peter

 

[MarkShot]

Peter,

I think Dave has the core of PBEM capability now in the game. Why do I say that?

* He has replay which for PBEM, you'll need a host and a client. So, you need to reproduce the battle on two separate PCs.

* He has RUN UNTIL which effectively becomes the turn slice.

I don't think the AI become ant less relevant, since the AI which acts upon the player's behalf determines the quality of the experience whether as an opponent or as the player's agent.

For me, the problem has always been how to make the time slices fair to both sides, but not too small. The way games plays now with two people playing PBEM random chance could give one or another player a huge advantage depending and what the situation is when they get to order.

PS: I will still being playing SP, and personal prefer to see more work invested on SP features.

 

[john connor]

The great thing, Mark, about the CO2 AI is that it certainly would enrich the PBEM game precisely because what would happen in the turn slice would be sensible. But I meant the AI becomes less relevant because certain features of the present AI activity would be massively enhanced by a human handling them. So, for instance, setting up long lines of defence with strung out units (as so often happened in WW2 in various theatres) doesn't presently work as well as one would like because as soon as the game starts the AI (if it's playing the defending side) will move all the defending units to positions it thinks are better, and presently its logic somehow determines that it will then gather force on objectives, leaving gaps inbetween. This problem is not surmountable, in scenario design, by the use of objectives precisely because it's the space between objectives that need covering. Line shaped objectives are needed. This is just one example that we've talked about before in here and in the dev forum. H2H it wouldn't be an issue because the human player wouldn't do that. Dave will, I'm sure, eventually get round to looking at this, but a PBEM functionality would probably make it less pressing because I feel sure than many more people would play H2H (perhaps including yourself?) if PBEM were available. As I said, getting the time sorted to play the current H2H system (real time connection) is very difficult for most people, not to mention all the connection issues. PBEM makes H2H very much easier. And because the AI is so good, it just wouldn't be like the (what I consider to be sub-standard) experience of playing, say Combat Mission with simultaneous turns, where the tac AI is so poor that devastation can be wreaked in a single one minute turn just because the pixel troops don't actually react quick enough when shot at etc.

Playing this game had to head is certainly the most thrilling wargame experience I've had, but the connect issues and the timing and time issues kill that as an ordinary possibility. But this game really should be played H2H loads - everyone should be into it. It really does deserve that, and the superb AI deserves that. But it doesn't happen much now because you can't do it PBEM.

 

[john connor]

As for turn lengths, I would say 40 minutes. You can then adjust the orders delay period (reduce it) to take that into account. But it would be nice if the players could pick the turn length and they could agree to change it (as they agree to change speed now) in game.

Strangely, despite my belief that human beings are nothing but biological robots, I still find playing one of them an existentially more exciting experience than playing a computer. And not just because they play better than a computer (this game, at least). Sometimes I finish an AI game and wonder what the point was. I don't get that same issue when I play a human.

 

[MarkShot]

Playing people is without a doubt the true test. Different people play different. The same person will vary their play.

And one completely forgets the psychological aspect which plays a huge role. When I used to fly on line, I mainly taught the style of "E Fighting"; while much of the community was foolishly into what I called "Air Shows". In E Fighting, I would progressively gain an advantage. Eventually, when the time was right, I would cash that in.

Psychology, played a big role.

* Low and slow against an opponent with a big E advantage. You would break right outside his gun range and into his turning circle while you were at corner. Enough of these maneuvers and he would lose that advantage.

* You would enter a looping fight with someone with more E. He with greater E loses it quicker. Finally, after his hard looping and your gentle looping. You would make that final loop oblong and pull him up. He would wallow at the top as you flat turn and came in behind to finish him.

* You would enter a fight of very high easy high climbing turns with the guy with more or less equal E. You would show him enough of your tail that he would be stuck in lag with tracers chasing your tail. He could taste that kill and each hard yank of stick would cost him.

So, psychology is combat. Putting that little probe of panthers in at night to maybe look like the main attack is on the move. An AI does not know how f*ck with someone's head.

 

[MarkShot]

BTW, I gave up competitive flying when I reached the top of CIS' National Ladder. (After, I only taught.) I didn't like the ego trips. For me it was about the joy of the game.

I had a private guide I circulated among various students. I was not worried about giving away "secrets" before I reached the top, but I thought it pretentious to offer techniques when I hadn't proved it out.

I did publish was I took the #1 slot:

* I was accused of being a cheater who used a guide to misdirect the fact that I was cheating.

* I was accused of having stolen all that I taught from others and having not a single original idea.

* I was accused of breaking the code (the code of ego). Meaning noobs must pay their dues and no one shares how one gets to be the best.

I would teach, tutor, and write. But I would never compete again. It wasn't for me.

 

[john connor]

Reminds me of my warbirds phase. Long time ago.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Re PBEM. This all chestnut never dies does it? Every time I have looked at it I have baulked for various reasons. The time interval is one issue. Though this could be handled by allowing each player to bid for the next time interval and then choosing the smallest. Eg Player 1 wants 10 minutes, Player 2 wants 2 hours. So the time interval will be set for 10 minutes. Though this in a way sends a signal to the player who wanted the longer time that his opponent is up to something. But it is the probably the best option I have thought of so far.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Re Mines. Once we have the tool developed to lay down a Named Area of Interest (NAI), which we will be doing in this next update as part of Sequential Tasking, then we can clone that tool to provide a minefield area. There would still be a lot of work to write the code to handle the effects, laying and clearing etc.

 

[MarkShot]

(warning rambling response ahead; but remember folks that it is is important to respect your elders)

Dave,

I am an SP guy. The folks (owners/developers) at Battlefront concluded that most customers are SP. Yet, I believe the PBEM crowd tend to be more vocal. Why? They are your hardcore players. The question is just how big would the CO2 PBEM vs SP crowd be. I am willing wager that again, the SP crowd would be the bigger demographic. So, is it worth it?

I would say for PBEM time slice ... be fair. Make it a random slice each turn based on the the scenario duration and some random factor. As the slice cannot be predicted, it cannot be gamed. You may call this new mode "Agonizingly Painfully Realistic"!

I see that you have already changed the business model. It used to be games (engine + content). Now, it is content.

It seems everyone is changing their business model these days. I shoot pool.

VP3 (Virtual Pool 3): Was sell the game. You could play with others with just an IP address.

VP4 (Virtual Pool 4): Partly sell the game. Now, to play online, you must subscribe. If you only want to play against your friend (unrated), then it is free. But if you want to participate in tournaments and be a rated player, then you must pay for your subscription.

Everyone is looking for new ways to make money these days. BTW, the above does not directly relate to PBEM other than it fits the traditional model of adding features to make engine sales as opposed to content sales or subscription/competition sales.

---

Myself, I've always had mixed feeling about the DLC approach. Why? Well, it some ways it puts the developer in competition with the customers. In the past, one game out there with tools (maybe even polished the tools) for content development. In short, the community would take a game with a 6-12 month shelf life and turn that into 5 years. But now, put too much power into the hands of the community, and you cut your own revenue stream.

I think CO2 no matter what business model will continue to be a niche in a niche. I admit I did not see that in 2000. I was sure that within 5 years all games would be based on intelligent agents similar to RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB/CO2. Alas, the war gaming demographic is somewhat unimaginative. The traditions established by BG even among the generation who never knew a time sans Internet are firmly rooted and will not die. So, sad.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

There is a reason for that Mark. It's a lot of hard work to create a good AI and most fail. Perhaps I should license out the engine for other developers. I am just looking for a way to make enough money to pay the bills and satisfy my customers.

 

[MarkShot]

Dave,

I think you would be miserable to license out the engine to others. It is your baby. DLC is a different story.

Here is what I learned about small developers such as yourself and my friends former owners of AGEOD, you are artists first and foremost. Nothing is more important. (I am a programmer. You pay me for a 2,000 hour project, then that is what you get ... even if I could build a system that can handle 10X the load ... I will target that 2,000 hour NTE contractual clause [not to exceed] and stop there. I can live with that. You have always pushed this code base to perfection and always will.)

The calculation of bottom line is not what keeps you working nights and weekends. If it was, you would take those skills and find a much larger market. You would be working at Google developing intelligent autonomous bus fleets. But would you be happy?

Dave, you have passion and bills. But the former gives your life meaning and identity, and the latter just stress. This is who you are.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Yeah but passion doesn't feed you

Sent from my GT-I9195T using Tapatalk

 

[MarkShot]

Sadly, true.

I cannot say that I had your choice before me.

My choice was between loving technology: systems software and the hardware hands on VS. management

In the 70s and 80s, American corporations were pushing this dual ladder concept. Meaning you could choose tech or management and do just as well. But it was a deception, management was always much better compensated. But this was pushed by HR, since the top doers kept getting lost from projects to spend 1/2 their days sitting in meetings. I also chose management and later my own business.

I truly missed the technology. But I was practical and every career choice I made was about money. Yet, I always admire those who are able to put what they love before what it pays.

That's only part of the reason you are one my heros. The other is that you have built something which no one else has. The name Sid Meier is better known as he is revolutionary of genres; yet you did pretty much the same thing for operational war gaming. You have shown what the genre could be and that it could be so much more than the roots from which it sprung.

 

[john connor]

deleted