Bug? Or just plain stupid?

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

Age of Empires is very well known for poor game AI and unit movement - which is why I am very upset that Battlegrounds is EXACTLY the same in this area....

 

Playing a game, my cannons sit there and never seem to return fire - and YES, they are on the correct stance.

 

Then, they opened fire on my own Air turrets.

 

Now, I have put up with alot of errors in this game but this is unreal. Lucasarts, to make a successful game - it has to be enjoyable and not make the players get p***ssed off with poor game AI etc etc - there is NO excuse in this day and age.

 

So, is this a bug or just a game that seems to be full of just plain stupid units?

 

A great topic for discussion i think

 

DarthMaulUK

Enter the EXCLUSIVE Scenario competition on our website! WIN Signed Screen Art by the Lucasarts team and the chance to get YOUR Scenario onto the cover disc of PC Gamer UK

http://www.galacticbattlegrounds.co.uk

[Rogue15]

u must hate force commander.

[Compa_Mighty]

You know? I don't understand why everyone complains about poor AI , from my point of view is pretty good.

[Rogue15]

doesn't it learn your strategies?

[AzN_ProtocoL]

AI is not very poor.... try beating few hardest comp.

[Guest Lord Tirion]

I have to agree with Mauly here. The AI is mediocre at best. Another AI bug about canons is if you have like 4 or 5 and select a target to attack, 3 of them open and 2 of them sit behind and dont even open up to fire.

 

How many times have you witnessed units standing there when an enemy is attacking your building or another unit. Mounted Units are most notorious in this department.

[Guest jediaoe]

sometimes the cannons only sit there because there is something in the way. You should also be paying more attention to the battle so your units don't drift or don't attack.

[whom2be]

AI is not very poor.... try beating few hardest comp.

 

the AI does not improve or get "smarter" on the hardest setting. It simply cheats! The computer starts with more resources. and at each tech upgrade it gets resource bonuses.

 

look for the post "hardest setting is a cheap cheat"

that says it all

[__DoA_Ogmius__]

what ya want for 50 bucks?

[Influenza]

There's a big difference between unit AI and opponent AI, everyone. The opponent AI isn't that bad; it just cheats like mad to get a win on hardest.

 

The unit AI, however, is pathetic. It's impossible that you've missed all the things that have already been pointed out (cannons not maneuvering [it isn't because they're blocked, BTW], units that don't fire when the enemy is near [very obvious with Repeater troops and Fighters], pummels that don't move those last three feet and instead stop at the doorstep of that Fortress you want to kill, and melee units that don't attack at all). If you've never noticed these bugs, you either haven't played the game enough or don't pay enough attention to your units in battle.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

Im sorry...some of you are missing the point. The cannons just opened fire. I didnt select them, there was no Jedi Masters around, they just opened fire

 

 

Today, my workers thought it would be fun to leave my burning Command Centre, despite clicking them twice to repair it...and I had more than enough resources.

 

DarthMaulUK

http://www.galacticbattlegrounds.co.uk

[Guest Lord Tirion]

jediaoe, hence.. bad AI...if the AI was fine, it would know enough to move the cannons to where they can copen up.

 

Some of you do not know what AI is. You think it only refers to computer strategies against you. AI refers to anything the computer controls, including your own units that you send on an errand. It is the AI that carries out that order. Influenza, thanks for explaining that to them =P

[Chessack]

Originally posted by Influenza

There's a big difference between unit AI and opponent AI, everyone. The opponent AI isn't that bad; it just cheats like mad to get a win on hardest.

 

The unit AI, however, is pathetic. It's impossible that you've missed all the things that have already been pointed out (cannons not maneuvering [it isn't because they're blocked, BTW], units that don't fire when the enemy is near [very obvious with Repeater troops and Fighters], pummels that don't move those last three feet and instead stop at the doorstep of that Fortress you want to kill, and melee units that don't attack at all). If you've never noticed these bugs, you either haven't played the game enough or don't pay enough attention to your units in battle.

 

Unit AI is always the hardest thing to program. I got really ticked off at Baldur's Gate (#1) last fall, when my characters would get stuck in dead-ends of hallways and block each other's way when there was no good reason for it, because the computer could nto figure out how to move them properly. I recall even complaining to a friend of mine, that I wished the unit AI for Baldur's Gate was as good as that for AoK -- since in AoK the vulnerable units are properly protected by the more powerful ones pretty much at all times, if you group them... but in Baldur's Gate often times the NPCs ignored the formation you ordered, and just went wherever they wanted.

 

I think to get the most out of the AI, you have to do several things.

 

First, make sure you set them in the right mode. Units (assuming you are playing with advanced commands enabled, since if you aren't, it's rather unfair to gripe about AI -- you woulodn't be using it to the fullest) are able to "Guard" other units, "Patrol" an area, can be "Agressive" (attack anything in sight and keep chasing it till it's dead), "Defensive" (attack enemies in sight but don't chase them more than a few map units), "Stand Ground" (attack enemies in range but don't move at all, etc. If you don't set your units to Defend or Stand Ground, they are Agressive by default (it would be nice if you could set a default unit mode for all units *once*, since I almost always order Defensive stance). If you don't change this (or if you are like me and you occasionally forget), then your units will go haring off across the map following stray scouts and whatnot. That's not "bad AI" -- it's the exact instructions you have given the units: attack like a berserker. If you don't want them to do that, then you have to tell them so.

 

I have never had a problem with units doing what I tell them to do directly. If I tell pummels to attack a fortress, they always do (unless there is a log jam between buildings, or there are units blocking their way, which is another story and is not the fault of the AI). I have occasionally been irritated that after the first few shots, sometimes a unit will change targets, but sometimes that has to do with range to target and where there is room (or not) for it to move. I have not noticed any of the canon problems but I never build more than 2 or 3 at a time anyway -- I prefer other kinds of units for attacking buildings most of the time (AT-ATs, in particular).

 

I'm not sure if they have the option in GB, but I know in the old AoE (#1) game, they had several pathfinding settings. The default was "medium", but if you set path finding to "high" units were much better at finding their way to target, resources, etc. You might try checking in the GB options and see if there is a way to change this. Careful, though -- the better the path finding, the more RAM and CPU power you use. If you're on an older machine and GB is pushing it to the limit, you will have to live with the weaker AI levels (that is, assuming there is even an option to change it, which I haven't checked for). If there is no such option, then that's something they might want to add to the expansion pack. It'd probably solve most of the problems you have noticed, which sound like path finding (rather than target selection) issues to me.

 

A second, very important, thing you should do is to micro-manage your forces whenever the going is tough. If you just drop a bunch of troops or pummels on you enemy's town, and then go back to your own village and start working on buildings and tech development, you shouldn't be surprised that your attack has fizzled. This is because your units are not all that smart. I don't consider that a bug in the AI. The whole point is that your units should perform better when you are watching the battle and giving them orders now and again, rather than if you just say to them 'go attack' and leave it at that. The computer will not, for any set of units, properly use attrition methods to whittle away the enemy (as any good gamer knows how to do, by having all 10 of your units attack one of his, killing it quickly, and moving on to the next, etc, etc). Instead it will "spread out" the damage, which weakens your units' effectiveness. Again, I do not consider this "poor unit AI". In the absolute, yes, the units are being stupid. However, they *should* be... this is a game about carefully managing your units' behavior. If the were so smart that they didn't need you, where would the fun in it be?

 

I'm not saying the AI couldn't use a bit of improvement, but I have not found the unit AI to be particularly problematic. Personally, I'd like to see them work more on the computer opponent AI (not necessarily making it all that much "smarter", but just to add some variety so you don't always know what to expect).

 

May the Force be with you.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

Its good to see some good points coming out here.

 

I haven't played AOK that much, so I can't really compare it to that. However, Galactic Battlegrounds is suppose to be all about Battles, but you spend alot of your time managing resources, and then dealing with attack(s) depending on how many enemies you have.

(Why the Trade Federation robots need food is a mystery to me..but anyway) - no matter what formations you are in sometimes, the AI seems to get confused all too easy.

 

AT-At walkers firing at Shelters rather than Fortresses is a good one - or having to actually guide your forces around enemy buildings to points on the map, as your forces cant resist to walk past enemy structures or units and get destroyed as they are too busy walking rather than fire back.

 

It's the year 2002 and computer games have come on a lot - Age Of Myth looks superb...the new benchmark in gaming? Who knows.

 

I was looking so forward to this SWGB and I quit playing Rebellion (despite all the bugs) for this game and I am now starting to feel very disappointed with it.

 

It's the best SW game for a while but that's not a diffcult challenge when you look at Force Commander, Rebellion and all those awful releases last year based on Episode One.

 

UK reviews have been very truthful and they were full of hope for this game but the low scores reflect the overall game play. One of the reasons why this game is not selling in England.

 

DMUK

[Gaming Nut]

Where did it say that nowhere on the box or the manual I personally like not having to just stick four harvesters on 1 resource and going off to fight? You don't like it fine not that it's a bad game just that you don't like having to manage eco fine doesn’t make a game that require that bad.

 

My units stay in formation usually their set to hold though if set to aggressive they'll chase after units and break formation family fast on hold of defecive they stay in formation.

 

Like he said it's your job to watch your units. Dose this game have way point if they do that destroy one of your arguments.

 

I always put the need for food down to feeding techs that maintain them people don't need a doctor to follow them around and keep them running a robot dose.

 

So it 2002 this game was made in 2001 and it's graphics are not really that bad SC is hardly stunning but it still fun to play.

 

Being from the UK dose not some how make it more truthful then a review from the U.S. also heir’s is no truth just opinions so those review aren't truthful just in line with your opinions.

[Influenza]

Lord Tirion: my pleasure .

 

Chessack: I appreciate the intelligence of your post and the way you present your ideas. But please, don't treat me like a child who doesn't know how to play the game. I am fully aware how to manipulate the game's mechanics to my advantage and understand how to win RTS games. I'm also a computer science student at one of the top CS universities in the 'States, so I perfectly understand the technical aspects of the game. You don't need to explain to me what "Guarding" and "Defensive" mean. Instead, let's talk about the real issues here: the unit AI.

 

There are a number of behavioral tendencies I have noticed in my hours of playing GB:

• Pummels: lots of problems with attacking buildings. Pummels have the nasty tendency to stop just one tile short of their target. This seems to happen most often when the pummel is attacking from the North or Northwest/east sides. It's hard to tell when it happens, since all you see is the outline of the pummel. But if you look closely enough, you won't see any outlines of sparks from the pummel. It happens quite a bit to me, and utterly defeats the purpose of the pummel.
  
• Cannons: groups of cannons get stuck on each other quite a bit, especially when you tell the entire group to attack the same target. This became especially visible to me when playing the Empire's Cloud City bonus mission (I beat that mission by slowly creeping along with groups of fighters, bombers, and four cannons). In groups of three or more, the two cannons closest to a target will, obviously, get in range to deploy and fire first. Subsequent cannons attempt to close with their target along the fastest path possible, which happens to be straight through the first two deployed cannons. So those extra cannons tend to clump up behind the first cannons and never deploy; they don't seem to recognize their ability to move around the other cannons. It may just be a fluke, but it seems to happen to me quite a bit.
  
• Unit formations: horrible. I really wish they would get rid of these. The units travel together in a group, fine; I can live with that. It's just that groups of units perform horribly when attacking in formations. First, they break the formation and scramble to the target; that's not too bad, but then they decided to stop moving at their maximum range, so your units end up in a ring-shape surrounding the target. A lot of you might not care, but it's a big bug to me. It takes a long time for those final units to move all the way around your semicircle to get in range to fire; all the while the group is being picked off by the unit/building it's attacking.
   
  Once I realize that the units are doing "the same f***ing thing" (as my mother was so proud to hear this Christmas break ), I tell them to move closer to the target so they can all fire at once. Except my plans are foiled again; the units decided to re-organize in their beautiful formation, going out of their way to make a pretty rectangle again. All this time they're still being shot at; you think they'd realize this and run to their destination ASAP. But no, they dance around until they're back in formation, then go on their merry way.
   
  What LucasArts *should* have done was treat a group of units in formation as a single unit with a single ground plate. Move the group's groundplate into position and voila, everyone can fire at once.
  
• All units in general: there are many cases where units simply don't fire. It's very obvious in groups of repeater troops; there will be lines of lasers from a few select individuals, but others won't be firing at all. Before you bring it up, YES, all the units were within range of the target. It's simply a bug. It happens quite a big with fighters and bombers too; I've also noticed that units set to Defensive or Hold Position are more likely to be afflicted.
  

That's it for now. I'm going back up to school tomorrow and need to pack...

[Crazy_dog no.3]

The easy and medium AI sucks, but I play on hard level and it's way better. For example, they just build up a huge mixed army, wjile on easy they just send small groups of infantry.

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

I haven't really complained about the graphics - as I knew what the game was going to look like.

 

Im glad that some are still chatting about the AI and not just when you play against the computer - it's the unit AI in general. Lucasarts should have at least done something with this.

 

You get so tied up with Resource Management rather than Battles sometimes, it can take the edge off the game - especially if you have to react very quickly to situations.

 

IF we do see an expansion, let's see an improved AI at least. This this was fixed, the game would start to look VERY appealing again to the masses.

 

DMUK

[Gaming Nut]

It's not the AI it's you man I use groups of 8 cannons on reguler basis it very simple once you play for awhile you get a feel for a weapons range I just wheel up my cannon and click the dploy button they all deploy and start shooting it's not problem if you use alitte effort. The formations I love I hated that in SC to get and kind of force to stay togeter you had to give them a hold order and then move each unit by hand. never had that resoure mangment problem it's not as hand off as SC or RA2 but it not hellishly diffcult. I never had problem reacting from scouting you should have rough idea of his plans and already built the counters. I have never had a problem with path finding.

[Chessack]

If you don't like how the unit AI for AoK and GB works (as some of you clearly do not), that's fine. I don't really think it's fair to complain too much about LucasArts "not changing it." They say, clearly, on the back of the box, that the game uses the AoK engine. I bought the game because I *liked* AoK (including the AoK unit AI, which I never had a problem with, and still don't with GB). We can argue till the cows come home about whether LucasArts should've just made a whole new engine or not, but given their choice to use the AoK engine, and given that they say it right there on the back of the box, it seems like it shouldn't have been a surprise, a disappointment, or something to get indignant over. If they'd hidden what they were doing, then I'd be right along side people complaining. But they were perfectly open about it and I see no reason to skewer them over it.

 

Also, it seems like some of the people who posted here (not the ones talking about bugs like pummels stopping 2 feet short of a tower and just sitting there, which is clearly a bug, if it happens -- though I have not personally seen it) want really really smart units that, in a sense, need little or no human intervention. While that might be something some people desire, I for one would not like the game if it was that "smart" (unit-wise), because it'd mean the units don't even need me. I like having that level of fine, detailed control. I have abandoned playing many a game that would not allow me to have that kind of detailed control. I for one prefer it that my units stop short and don't keep going after they've reached the place I told them to go. I don't want them haring off all over the map; I want them where I told them to go, doing what I told them to do. When I don't tell them anything, it means I want them to "sit there and shut up", as it were, because I don't need them right now.

 

There seem to be two issues here, then. One is that there may be a few AI bugs, which the LA people could fix with a patch or in an expansion. Things like pummels not "seeing" a building even when it is in their line of sight, are bugs. But the other issue is how smart do you want the units to be when you aren't controlling them. I for one would rather they just stay put, be stupid, and wait for orders. That's because the odds are, what they would be programmed to do would not necesarily be what I want them to do -- which has nothing to do with smarts and everything to do with tactics and strategy. Why should I want some game writer to tell my units what their battle tactics are? After all, that's what you're doing if you let the unit AI take over -- you're letting someone else write your rules of engagement. I don't want that. I want to be the one to determine the real time tactics. Therefore, I like the way GB works, and I for one would not want to change it. If you want much less control over tactics, then no matter what kinds of expansions they do to GB, I suspect they will never be able to make you happy, because the engine expects you to micro manage your resources and units; it rewards you for doing so.

 

May the Force be with you.

[Guest Lord Tirion]

Gamingnut:

 

"Like he said it's your job to watch your units. Dose this game have way point if they do that destroy one of your arguments."

 

You honestly believe this type of a game which is prone to lag, able to host over 200 units, and contain maps that are gigantic lets us watch our units with ease? Please bro. You are missing the point. The point is, you SHOULDN"T have to watch each unit with fear of them not listening. That is the point of AI.. because the I stands for Intelligence, not Ignorance.

 

If you want to defend everything that is fine. But just remember, if everybody would have your mentality (this is not meant as a flame or a joke), then nothing would ever improve because everybody would be satisfied to what is thrown out to them. It is people in this thread that push gamers to perform better in future projects. You think they dont read what people have to say? You bet they do.

 

All DarthMaul started here was to reach out and get other people's opinions on some faults with the AI. He did not bash the game or ask how hard the computers are on each difficulty or that the graphics sucks. Yet we have people jumping all over him and some of the people agreeing with him telling them they are wrong and that the AI is fine. It is good to see a debate going, but not when a debate is being based on wrong accusations or people just jumping in trying to assert themselves. I am not saying that such a person is you, yet if you read up on this thread, you can find them. I just find it amazing how some people can stray off topic and start a debate of their own =P

[Guest DarthMaulUK]

All that I can say is 'Gaming Nut' has problems actually READING the posts. Try READING my post about the Cannons I had problems with.

 

Lucasarts have been very open with the fact they are using an 'aged' game engine - fine - it gives us a chance to actually do larger scale battles.

 

But the AI does limit these battles some what. Someone mentioned about the ease of controlling the units, and this can be a problem.

 

If someone likes to attack from more than one point ( eg.. do a plummel drop and attack another section of the enemy base) this can be difficult as nearly all the units need help to either find their target or move to a location where they can actually get to a target.

 

And I am sorry, but when a plummel attacks a Shelter rather than a closeby turret - this is unforgiveable.

 

I am not after super clever units - I just expect things to react when under attack - not too much to ask. And in all traditional Lucasarts style, the game is full of bugs.

 

They might release another patch to clear up some of them very soon I hope.

Had I paid £40 ($60) for this game, I would have been VERY upset but at £30 ($50) I guess all is not lost.

 

DarthMaulUK

PS: Thanks Nexsis for your support!

[Guest jediaoe]

you should atleast pay attention to some of the battle, and give your units orders. The units attack any emeny that is close to them, if they attack a building and a unit walks by the will attack the unit. If they are closer to one building than another they will attack the close one. I think that they did a great job with this game and they deserve some credit rather than most people critizing on the flaws.

[Rogue15]

ehehe i 'played' an 8 hour long galactic battlegrounds game yesterday, well, i spent about 3 hours setting up defense and researching, ended up with 4 advanced turrets in front of my base, and facing the enemy's base ,a fortress by the turrets, and 2 anti aircraft turrets and i had a shield encasing them, all this was in the front of my base. We left for the mall, and i left galactic battlegrounds on to see if the ai would come up with a way to defeat me. it didn't, all my turrets and fortress were still up, they slaughtered a couple of my nova workers cause they weren't in range of the turrets, none of my turrets took hull damage!! all they had to do to defeat my was come around the back of my base with artillery and mobile cannons, and i would've been defeated. I saved it and exited, saw i had been 'playing' for EIGHT hours!!! The max population i had was 25. i don't go over the limit, cause it's too hard...

[Guest Lord Tirion]

jediaoe, you did not read... or better yet, you did not comprehend what I just posted above did you? Nobody is bashing the game. There is such a thing as "constructive criticism". Did anybody in this thread say this game sucks? No. Did anybody say they wasted money on this game? No. So why must you go out on a wild tangent putting words in our mouths making us out to be players who hate this game and despise it? If you want to debate something just for the sake of debating, then thats your own problem. But please do not come in here putting words in our mouths. All DarthMaul stated was that some issues need to be attended to to enhance the gameplay. That was it.