Graviteam
March 28, 2024, 01:55:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why the player is always handicapped?  (Read 10571 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lemonade
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 191


« on: July 09, 2015, 12:10:21 AM »

Something that always puzzled me is that the player is always handicapped no matter what side he plays. Example - Volokonovka. Playing as Russians the player faces about 20 German units while commanding only 14 units. But when he's playing as Germans, he only has 14 units at his disposal and the Russians have 16 of them. NOTE: In the very same operation.
Why such discrepancy? I can't shake the feeling that it's a little bit gamey, if you get my drift. Wink
Logged
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1134

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2015, 05:17:38 AM »

It's the same reason AI always gets to cheat in games.
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
Flashburn
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2412



« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2015, 07:28:29 AM »

Well the AI does not cheat in GTOS.  But ya, more numbers to make for the fact that you have way more brains than the AI.  We are still quite far from having human like AI for games. 
Logged

Yabba dabba do
Lemonade
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 191


« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2015, 03:41:05 PM »

I see. But the AI in GTOS isn't bad and provides a good challenge to the player. So is it really necessary to resort to these kind of dirty tricks?
Logged
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1134

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2015, 03:58:11 PM »

Semantics.  More numbers are more resources, that could be called cheating.  Another reason to make the came so it can be played between two humans if desired.
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2015, 07:42:05 PM »

I see. But the AI in GTOS isn't bad and provides a good challenge to the player. So is it really necessary to resort to these kind of dirty tricks?
This way is used more in early ops (stock game and first DLCs).
In newest ops in most cases for AI used diffirent initial placements in operational map (to prevent block AI troops from player), and AI have a long reserve pools to create greater diversity due to the fact that the AI will take different setups for the platoons on the operation start (in some cases it can lead to what the AI would take +1 vehicle/squad in the platoon). Sometimes there are just differently distributed platoons within a company / battalion, for example AI have a 3 platoons with more empty slots (and fills it randomly), but player have only 2 but almost completely loaded.
Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2015, 07:49:01 PM »

Semantics.  More numbers are more resources, that could be called cheating.

No. _Quantitative_ changes is called the level of complexity (difficulty). And he did to the players was more interesting (more difficult to play).
But cheating when the AI shoot more accurately (for example in FPS - shot and always hit), always knows where the player units and always precisely artillery shells to it and so on. Ie receives a _qualitative_ rather than a quantitative advantage.

in total, example from FPS:
1) your team is 4 men, enemy is 10 men - you can use your skills and win, - ok
2) your team is 4 men, enemy is 1 man, but enemy always see through walls and shot without miss - it is cheat
« Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 07:52:58 PM by andrey12345 » Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
DDTank
Hauptmann
***
Posts: 44


« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2015, 08:52:13 PM »

Whatever you do, I suggest not trying to play Shield of the Prophet which I posted about separately. You get a few guys in turbans with some AK's and the AI has a column of tanks. I exaggerate a little but it will probably leave you wondering why you even bothered to install it...
Logged
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1134

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2015, 09:32:01 PM »

Semantics.  More numbers are more resources, that could be called cheating.

No. _Quantitative_ changes is called the level of complexity (difficulty). And he did to the players was more interesting (more difficult to play).
But cheating when the AI shoot more accurately (for example in FPS - shot and always hit), always knows where the player units and always precisely artillery shells to it and so on. Ie receives a _qualitative_ rather than a quantitative advantage.

in total, example from FPS:
1) your team is 4 men, enemy is 10 men - you can use your skills and win, - ok
2) your team is 4 men, enemy is 1 man, but enemy always see through walls and shot without miss - it is cheat


"Quantity has a quality all its own" (often attributed to Stalin but not author not definitively established)

If we play a football match and you bring on more players to the field, that is cheating.

We disagree on the definition of cheating.  I'm ok with that.



Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
Dane49
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1479


« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2015, 02:07:07 AM »

This is almost too funny.

Does anyone really believe that unless you own a super computer that the AI would be able to give each soldier its own personality in a game to think like a human? I don't even think the United States Dept. of Defense has a computer that could master that many calculations currently! Not to mention the  extraordinary amount of time and money it would take to make this dream a reality. LOL! Come, on! Think about what it would really take to get to this point in time presently.

And even if a game company could come up with an AI that thought like a human, how many millions of dollars do you have to invest in a personal gaming computer to handle that much memory?

I wonder how long it would take to download that to your PC also?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 04:16:15 AM by Dane49 » Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2015, 10:11:27 AM »

"Quantity has a quality all its own" (often attributed to Stalin but not author not definitively established)

It is a philosophical concept from Friedrich Engels based on Friedrich Hegel works ("attributed to Stalin" it is a big LOL, are you "Stalinist"?), and it should be treated properly. Yes, if the AI would be an order of magnitude more power, then quantitative changes switched to quality changes. But this superiority for the AI is far less.

If we play a football match and you bring on more players to the field, that is cheating.
No it is a part of a rules, if player got red mark it is removed from field. And team plays w/o it.
This is also true for handball, hockey with the ball, rugby, athletics.

Bad example.
Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2015, 10:31:55 AM »

Does anyone really believe that unless you own a super computer that the AI would be able to give each soldier its own personality in a game to think like a human? I don't even think the United States Dept. of Defense has a computer that could master that many calculations currently! Not to mention the  extraordinary amount of time and money it would take to make this dream a reality. LOL! Come, on! Think about what it would really take to get to this point in time presently.

Main problem is that computers and people they work in different ways and does not directly comparable the "power of the human brain" vs "power of a super computer" entirely.
Human is ultra slow, low memory but ultimate multithreaded, in same time PC is a ultra fast, high memory but strongly singlethreaded.

Here the meaning is somewhat different. In AI (even in the version on the PC) has its advantages that are not available to most players.
The main of them:
1) AI can be difficult to predict
2) knows the rules of the game
3) do not lazy.
This is usually sufficient for play but for an interesting game that is not enough. Game needs to create challenge for the player.

But in a human player exactly has the huge advantage - the decision of geometrical problems on plane (they gave the man millions of years of evolution). This leads to the problem that the concentration of troops he decides generally better even if lazy.

As result, if the fighting so intense due to the fact of the high troop density, for example in Shilovo, in principle, 90% of the sufficient rearrangement of troops on the operational map for AI. Where densities are low, it is sometimes necessary to add more complexity.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 10:34:38 AM by andrey12345 » Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1134

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2015, 07:45:16 PM »

This is almost too funny.

Does anyone really believe that unless you own a super computer that the AI would be able to give each soldier its own personality in a game to think like a human? I don't even think the United States Dept. of Defense has a computer that could master that many calculations currently! Not to mention the  extraordinary amount of time and money it would take to make this dream a reality. LOL! Come, on! Think about what it would really take to get to this point in time presently.

And even if a game company could come up with an AI that thought like a human, how many millions of dollars do you have to invest in a personal gaming computer to handle that much memory?

I wonder how long it would take to download that to your PC also?

All the more reason to allow two humans to play the game head to head.  No super computer needed and no artificial disparity of forces needed for compensation.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 07:54:42 PM by Tanker » Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
Tanker
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 1134

BRING BACK MARKERS


« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2015, 07:53:46 PM »

"Quantity has a quality all its own" (often attributed to Stalin but not author not definitively established)

It is a philosophical concept from Friedrich Engels based on Friedrich Hegel works ("attributed to Stalin" it is a big LOL, are you "Stalinist"?), and it should be treated properly. Yes, if the AI would be an order of magnitude more power, then quantitative changes switched to quality changes. But this superiority for the AI is far less.



Well don't laugh at me.  Most websites mention Stalin as using a variation of this theme, they also mention that the origin is not clear.   I don't believe that specific quote has ever been definitely linked to a specific person.  And no, I'm not a Stalinist.
Logged

Bring back 3D markers!
Flashburn
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2412



« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2015, 02:13:27 AM »

Whatever you do, I suggest not trying to play Shield of the Prophet which I posted about separately. You get a few guys in turbans with some AK's and the AI has a column of tanks. I exaggerate a little but it will probably leave you wondering why you even bothered to install it...


Hmm that is different really.  Your fighters there are on the leading edge of the Iranian/Afgan forces.  If you always want and equal 1 on 1 fight it get vary boring.  In this case you are being hit with over whelming force.  The Soviets there are using your Clausewitz concept of mass of force.  Its how you want to fight if on the attack.  Your job as player is to figure how to deal with this.  Clearly you can not win if your out numbered 20 to 1.  But you do have an army behind you.  And you can boss them around in the coming hours.  So your choices in this case are...

*sit in place  and fight to the death.
*hide out and maybe blow a couple things up and attempt to fight another day.
*run like hell. 

I do the second one on this campaign.  Hide out and nibble and fall back to get may own Mass of forces in defensive ground.  In other words, a fighting retreat.  Which means preserve as much force as possible for future use while using rear guard actions to slow up the attack.  Which also means fleeing the battlefield at times so that hopefully routed forces will make there way back to my lines.  ANd it works vary well.  Or has for me.
Logged

Yabba dabba do
Lemonade
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 191


« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2015, 09:27:42 PM »

I see. But the AI in GTOS isn't bad and provides a good challenge to the player. So is it really necessary to resort to these kind of dirty tricks?
This way is used more in early ops (stock game and first DLCs).
In newest ops in most cases for AI used diffirent initial placements in operational map (to prevent block AI troops from player), and AI have a long reserve pools to create greater diversity due to the fact that the AI will take different setups for the platoons on the operation start (in some cases it can lead to what the AI would take +1 vehicle/squad in the platoon). Sometimes there are just differently distributed platoons within a company / battalion, for example AI have a 3 platoons with more empty slots (and fills it randomly), but player have only 2 but almost completely loaded.
Thanks for the explanation, Andrey. I wish there was some setting that would let us play operations with historical unit placement and OOB for both sides. Am I right thinking that only player units fulfil this requirement at the moment (in early operations)?
Logged
andrey12345
Graviteam
Generalfeldmarschall
******
Posts: 6642


Jerk developer


« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2015, 09:43:31 PM »

Thanks for the explanation, Andrey. I wish there was some setting that would let us play operations with historical unit placement and OOB for both sides. Am I right thinking that only player units fulfil this requirement at the moment (in early operations)?

In most cases historical OOB are unknown or fragmented due to lack info or basic docs. Some operations is better, some worstest.
At nowadays FB_AGA works on this field, a better result in Shilovo DLC. OOBs in it are close to reality as possible in the game, for some OOBs extact to the unit.
But for example, in Krasnaya Polyana DLC, there are differences in the basic version of the events, even only from the German side.

But it's a large array of work often have to sift through a pile of documents in order to understand the details. Part of the documents is totally lost. Part is noisy or distorted by information trash.

One thing is for sure - very rarely will be OOBs as described in the books.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 09:46:38 PM by andrey12345 » Logged

Пользовательский интерфейс будет неуместен на сегодняшних широкоэкранных экранах, а оригинальные карты неопределенного метра и моделирование чисел с низкими лицами заставляют людей действительно не хотеть играть.
Lemonade
Oberstleutnant
*****
Posts: 191


« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2015, 11:04:40 PM »

That's a sad thing to hear. Oh I wish there were more WW2 documents preserved intact.
I appreciate your effort guys.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!