Original Carrier Command in the floppy disk days DID NOT have AI for unpiloted vehicles

[DedZedNub]

Ok, here is the point. My MEMORY of the old Carrier Command way back on floppy disks for the PC (not talking Amiga etc here) is that the Walruses and Mantas (or their equivalents) did not have their own AI. Instead they simply hovered or orbited in place, once the player exited them. They did not react to enemy attack either.

Again, I don't know if the Amiga version etc were different. I much liked the original Carrier Command. But I don't have the rosy memory some have described. There was another issue as well.

The other issue, to my memory, was a difficult time actually using the Carrier Command deck gun, it often didn't work at all, and it's aim was inaccurate.

Why do I mention all of this? Some posters claim that BI got it worse. Sure, maybe. But I recall that BI's key issues, AI for player vehicles when not manned by player control and the Turrets are part of the original PC game issue back in the floppy disk days. Makes me wonder, are they basing some of their code on that original code, because if so that's the start of the problem.

In comparison, Hostile Waters did not have those issues, in the main. The Walruses could get a little confused on some terrain, but mostly they were ok. Mantas and Walruses had various AI named after dead soldiers that could be installed into them, to assist the player, and worked relatively well.

However, there was a way, by recollection, to sort of scam the enemy AI of enemy turrets in Hostile Waters. If you approached very carefully, you could find that their activation radius, as in many games, was less than the actual range of both their turrets and your own weapons. You could cheese it by simply working into your max range and yet be outside their activation range. Unfortunately, my methods at the time were very slow and methodical, and that usually was enough to beat the game. If I played it again, I wouldn't allow for that, as I know it leads to easier victories.

[Raven😂1407]

I am sorry, but they had a nav system... You put in their destination and they were flying/driving/swimming to its destination. When reached, valrus stopped and AAVs did starting curving around. As i always bombed the command centre, i never lost a Valrus, only AAVs on its way to the cc.

[DedZedNub]

I don't see how we are disagreeing. I said AI. A nav system, where you tell the vehicle to go to a set location is hardly AI, certainly not combat AI. (Navigation system does require code, you provide the input that it interprets. That's technically intelligence and it runs on a computer therefore it is artificial, but that's not the customary concept of vehicle AI). They did not, again this is to my recollection, have combat AI. You had to attack or defend for them and take control. (They did find their intended locations better, so if you mean the intelligence to find the intended target nav point, yeah that was better)

They definitely could be given a navigation route. No disagreement there. I loved the game. At the time it was very impressive. I'm just saying that I've seen many posts by some that they had AI. That doesn't make sense to me from my memory. It's possible that on another system, perhaps the Amiga or Atari ST, if that was available, that they had more AI. I don't know. For that matter, i'm not absolutely positive which system I played it on. I had some Atari consoles, also a Atari 1200XL, Amstrad PC, etc. I know it was never on the Intellivision, don't recall it being on the Adam or Colecovision. Etc.

But at least in the original Carrier Command it was an omission by design. I don't think it is an intended design in the CCGM of today. The lack of AI on the Mantas and Walruses in the old CC was certainly not much of an issue, and I believe they gave alerts as to when they were under attack etc.

Hostile Waters definitely had complete AI if you installed the "souls" of a particular soldier in the appropriate vehicle. That was a major advance. The AI was competent, you could always do a bit better if you handled that vehicle itself, but the AI was a good wingman and had no trouble accomplishing most tasks with adequate efficiency. Example, Ransom was a good Helicopter assault pilot, Patton was decent with the afv's, and so on. So Hostile Waters had more than a navigation system for its vehicle AI. Borden was capable with the transport helicopter, etc.

[Species1571]

The original CC had a simple autopilot navigation system. If you gave it a waypoint, it would go there in a straight line, even if that meant driving into a tree. If it hit a tree, autopilot would be knocked off. Islands were totally flat with very little going on on them. People comparing the complex game we have today with the old one and saying that it's not as good just because you can't play out the mission from the map screen is absurd. Jump in and take control of the vehicles, it's what the game is all about, the AI is just there to aid you and it does well enough most of the time.

[DedZedNub]

Species, that was my basic recollection. I try to be a bit diplomatic. I know that you are a resident expert on the subject and have made THE major mod to the current CCGM that showcases much knowledge on the mechanics as well. It's good to see you posting here and I would consider your answer definitive on the subject.

If I may, if you continue to read this thread, I would ask several questions of you, if I may:

1) The recent patch to something like 1.07025 from 023 supposedly broke your excellent mod. How is progress going on your updating your mod to work with the latest patch?

2) I've asked this many times, but your expertise is the one I would go with -- if I patch from the 1.02 off Gamersgate and then with 1.07 sdk, etc -- is that sufficient? What is the best way to patch it? I intend to install, patch, and play the Gamersgate and 1.07 fully patched version for Spring break in April.

EDIT IN: I mean normally if you patch with an SDK version, since it is unpacked, that has everything and overrides everything else, in MOST games, but there are exceptions. In addition the .exe is not necessarily updated. Some games you need to go with 1.00 to 1.01 to 1.02 etc, some are all inclusive, some are sort of in-between. Like a certain version becomes patchable and then you patch with any later patch from there, which seems to be the situation in CCGM, but Bohemia Interactive is one scary place. There are more versions for all of their games than most entire catalogs have for some game makers.

3) If you wish to divulge, are you the same Species who also tends to post on Gamersgate tutor questions decently often? If so, you do an excellent job and are very concise, even though you obviously go out of the way to help.

[Species1571]

I'm not a resident expert on anything, my opinions are just opinions like everyone else's. Just stating my opinion that the complaints about the pathfinding are pretty overblown. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's workable.
About the Deadly Islands mod, I have the mod updated for the new beta and almost ready to post, just need some more playtesting and it will be good to go.
About patching, I only did a clean re-install once where going straight to the latest version didn't work (only for me it seems), I would get a crash on launch and I had to install the pervious patch first. I spoke to one of the devs about it and at first they couldn't understand why I had to double patch, then they figured it out and updated the patch, so clearly they do intend for only one patch to be needed. I think if you do the update and the game launches and reports the correct version, you should be ok.
I don't use the SDK in the current beta, as the workbench crashes on launch for me since 1.07.0033, so I keep a separate full install of 1.06.0011 just for the workbench.
I don't know what Gamersgate is, so no I'm not the same person, unless it is just an archive of posts from other forums.

[DedZedNub]

Thanks for the reply, much appreciate it. Glad to hear your Deadly Islands mod is almost ready to post.

Gamersgate is just another place where you can download games for the PC. They have forums to help people with questions, called GameTutor, etc. It must be someone else then as they don't have an archive of other forum posts. Sometimes they have better prices than Steam, sometimes Steam does. Their catalog has a few games that are hard to find on Steam and vice-versa.

[Zothen]

Messaggio originale di DedZedNub:

... Makes me wonder, are they basing some of their code on that original code, because if so that's the start of the problem.

Eh, what? ...Oh, oh - that! Yes, THAT must be the reason... You totally nailed it down....eh, not. /facepalm

The reason is much more simple: BIS notoriously suck at vehicle AI. Watch Arma 1-3 and you see the same pattern (even if it was a different team).

[DedZedNub]

Zothen, LOL. That's the point. Bohemia Interactive have been in the AI business forever. Yet, they consistently run into the same mistakes. So, I was trying to sarcastically and humourously give them "an out". It is funny that there were, for example, also issues finding out how many gun attachments you could put on Hostile Waters land vehicles and those of Gaia Mission, although they weren't the exact same problem nor really wrong on Hostile Waters.

It does suggest a mindset of trying to do the same thing again and learning from previous examples how to do it the wrong way.

Hope your forehead doesn't hurt to bad after that /facepalm. When you said BI sucks at vehicle AI, I also did /facepalm. So I guess we are even LOL.

I think they simply overtask their systems in place for AI. But I have no idea what actually BI does wrong. At least they aim high, leaving the pedestrians alive.