Under the Hood (AI) of APOS and Combat Mission

[Ezra]

Let me first say that I do not own CM (Combat Mission) although I have played the demo extensively. I prefer APOS obviously because I feel that it simulates battle well in terms of tactics and campaign strategy and it certainly is more immersive in my opinion when it comes to visuals and atmosphere.

I know CM is a little more "minutia" focused in terms of tactical (and labour for issuing commands) which leaves me wondering if the following quote is true (from the Battlefront boards) under CMBN (Combat Mission beyond Normandy) under "performance thread" relating to its version 3.0 engine.

I wonder what Andrey thinks of the following comment?

" It doesn`t [APOS] use the same calculations. Die rolls versus actual ballistic/penetration modelling. The tactical AI, especially for infantry, isn`t even comparable. . .so no, not at all the same."

I wasn`t aware that APOS used "die rolls" for ballistics. The quote above is in discussion as to ("not at all the same") why APOS runs better than the latest 3.0 engine that BF has released in upgrade for their present CM product under equivalent computer systems. Many upper end (comp) users are complaining on the dated engine (BF) and its present and future capabilities.

I always wondered how APOS calculated their ballistics. Did not realize it was resolved with a "dice roll." This then would explain the trade off versus GFX and Ballistic modelling inclusive of AI modelling--no?

[Dane49]

NO!

They use an Algorithm that you can look at during the game or in the encyclopedia.

If you're getting your information from Battlefront about this game, you might as well get all your news information from Fox news.

No die rolls involved in this game. Those shit heads at Battlefront are constantly putting out misinformation about GTOS and lying about how realistic their game is, and in my opinion failing at every level.

CM is basically the board game Squad Leader in 3D, or a board game posing as a realtime realistic simulated PC wargame.

Luckily you have a choice and demos to compare. If you want to be every squad or tank on the battlefield and have dictatorial control over all your units go with CM. If you want a more realistic atmospheric setting and better looking visuals with a better  command and control type experience then go with GTOS.

The game isn't called APOS(Achtung Panzer Operation Star) anymore it's called GTOS( Graviteam Tactics Operation Star).

[Ezra]

Easy on the tone friend and show some respect by curbing the language. I never said I received the info about GTOS from Battlefront. I only quoted one of the developers. This is a democracy the last time I looked. What does fox news have to do with anything I said? I was only stating an observation for discussion. I happen to own every GTOS product so far.

[lavish]

It's impossible to really compare the level of simulation/modeling without seeing the code of the game itself and without referencing it back to comparable experimental data. Even the penetration charts in encyclopedia in GTOS, to my understanding, is a simplified/idealized output of the code - one chart cannot take into account all the variables in the code. One thing GTOS has is the after battle statistics which gives you at least a chance to analyze hits, penetrations and damages calculated by the game. I do also believe that the overall modeling of physics is better in GTOS, although I'm sure that some of the models are, inevitably, probability based; actually, in both games.

[andrey12345]

" It doesn`t [APOS] use the same calculations. Die rolls versus actual ballistic/penetration modelling. The tactical AI, especially for infantry, isn`t even comparable. . .so no, not at all the same."

I wasn`t aware that APOS used "die rolls" for ballistics. The quote above is in discussion as to ("not at all the same") why APOS runs better than the latest 3.0 engine that BF has released in upgrade for their present CM product under equivalent computer systems. Many upper end (comp) users are complaining on the dated engine (BF) and its present and future capabilities.

Think about it, how realistic hope for a realistic ballistics in the game in which even wheeled vehicles rotates around its center of gravity, and any laws of physics are completely absent  .

At second, after battle in GTOS you can see statistic with all hits and penetrations, and you can freely check it right or not. But in CM any way to check?
At third, you can try SABOW (tank simulator game that share engine and all features with GTOS) and shot manually use sights from tank, and check ballistics and armor penetration itself.

I always wondered how APOS calculated their ballistics. Did not realize it was resolved with a "dice roll." This then would explain the trade off versus GFX and Ballistic modelling inclusive of AI modelling--no?

It all has little to do with reality  .
Naturally in the GTOS no any "Dice roll" and has never been.

In simplest case (homogenous armor vs penetrator) in GTOS used somthing like this scheme to resolve armor penetation



except most upper and lower left parts of scheme (uncommon cases)
(vertical axis - shell velocity, horizontal axis - armor slope
curves - shell states after armor hit)


All this based on realistic ballistic computing based on weather conditions, include guided missiles, mortar mines, rockets, bombs, projectiles with remote detonation. Are running the model of all common types of shells and shrapnel fields.
I bet we have a simulation harder than in other wargames, except for future GTMF

[andrey12345]

The tactical AI, especially for infantry, isn`t even comparable. . .so no, not at all the same."

How about a formation, say an infantry company with tanks attacks in one formation automatically  ? How about a wired connections (most common in WW2)? How about moving towed guns? Signal flares, night battles, etc? About AI CM at all funny  . What happens in the CM if not write a mission script, whether AI do something itself?  

There is no problem to combine it all, obviously. It is simply uneconomical, while profit brings the old engine and games on it. Simply better tell megillah than invest in new tech

[Dane49]

Easy on the tone friend and show some respect by curbing the language. I never said I received the info about GTOS from Battlefront. I only quoted one of the developers. This is a democracy the last time I looked. What does fox news have to do with anything I said? I was only stating an observation for discussion. I happen to own every GTOS product so far.

Since this is a democracy I offered my own opinion. You obviously seem to take offense to anyone who disagrees with you or Battlefront.

You wanted an observation for discussion. Here's mine.
I suspect you are one of those CM schills that occasionally pop in here to start a troll session.

Now I could be wrong and if so I apoligise,but I see far too many CM schills on any board where GTOS is discussed and your name sounds famaliar to one of the posters schilling CM on the Steam forum.

[Ezra]

Dane49,

Anyone that prefaces their false accusations with an apology is obviously contentious. You are wrong about me. You misunderstood me and nor do I support battlefront. I only reviewed their "free" demo. Wake up and re-read the original post. I asked for Andrey`s opinion , not yours. You offered it freely with an attitude and then falsely criticize me. Like I said, I own all of GTOS product and presently don`t support battlefront. But who cares whether I do? Clearly you do for some odd reason.

Andrey,

Hopefully the naysayers will read this at battlefront because I couldn`t answer the initial criticism that I quoted from BF. Now I understand more clearly. But you clearly did. Thank for your kind and respectful answer.

Ezra

[Dane49]

As you correctly surmised it wasn't an apology per se.
Only time and your future postings will disprove or prove whether my current assumptions about your intentions were true or false.

[Krabb]

I think questions are answered, so I'm locking this.