Which is better?

[womble]

No, you misunderstand. What I'm saying is that the goal for the designer should be to make a scenario that's playable as either side vs the AI as well as head to head. It's not necessary to make a scenario playable or even challenging vs the AI by limiting themselves to playable as one side only. It's more difficult to do, that's true, but it's not impossible. If the designer aims for less I think the designer is just limiting themselves to something less than they could acheive if they put a little more thought and effort into their design. What bothers me is when designers don't even make the effort.

I think you're wrong. Dead wrong. The AI is so far below the standard of even a basically competent player that if you make it challenging in one direction against the AI, the force balance required to achieve that makes it a cakewalk if you reverse the direction and require human players to be of the most sporting kind to get any enjoyment out of it.

Though I'd love to be wrong: please point me at a scenario that is challenging to play from either side against the AI and a human opponent.

[Paper Tiger]

If the designer aims for less I think the designer is just limiting themselves to something less than they could acheive if they put a little more thought and effort into their design. What bothers me is when designers don't even make the effort.

On second thoughts, I think it's a very bad idea to open up a discussion on this as it's a minefield. We're already throwing the criticisms of other designer's work around so let's not go there. I've got nothing but respect for anybody who takes the time to create convincing work with the scenario editor, including yourself.

I'll confine my remarks to say that there are two sides in a CMx2 mission, an attacker and a defender. In MEs, both players are attackers. The AI can be scripted to do a good job of defending, no argument there but it's not a great attacker. It needs a wee bit of help to make it effective on the attack. Help that any half-decent human player can make far better use of than a scripted AI plan ever can, including using the clock. I've designed a fair few AI attacks in my time. My very first CMx2 mission, 'In Harm's Way', was a RED attack v Human US player. When I switch sides and play against the PT defensive set-up, I can blow the AI away every time. But that's just me. So, to end this post, I will continue to design missions in the way I see fit and, hopefully, BFC will think they're good enough for inclusion. When they're no longer good enough, I'll call it quits

[Freyberg]

I'm not having a go, but I don't really understand people who don't play head-to-head. Playing humans can be frustrating: they are often gamey, won't play blind, drop out half way through - but for all that, a game against a good human player, combined with the realism of this amazing wargame, is incredibly exciting.

Each to his own, obviously, but just in case there is someone reading that hasn't tried head-to-head play...

[sburke]

I'm not having a go, but I don't really understand people who don't play head-to-head. Playing humans can be frustrating: they are often gamey, won't play blind, drop out half way through - but for all that, a game against a good human player, combined with the realism of this amazing wargame, is incredibly exciting.

Each to his own, obviously, but just in case there is someone reading that hasn't tried head-to-head play...

+100 on that. The only problem with playing HTH is you get spoiled. I have to admit though, it took me a long time to come around to that opinion and it helped I have a great gaming partner. If my first HTH opponent and demonstrated any of that behavior you mentioned they might have been my last.

[A Canadian Cat]

+100 on that. The only problem with playing HTH is you get spoiled. I have to admit though, it took me a long time to come around to that opinion and it helped I have a great gaming partner. If my first HTH opponent and demonstrated any of that behavior you mentioned they might have been my last.

That is so true. Thankfully one of my first experiences was with a friend in real life (which means we can punch each other if we do stupid stuff like that). I now have three regular partners that I trust to play blind and it is great. Plus several more that have proven themselves good players too. There have been a few annoying partners but I fired them . Since I always have several good games going I can afford to test out new people now and then. If they surrender like babies after the first time I draw blood or throw a hissy fit and rage quite after I take out a tiger - I just don't play them again - ever. Heck even one of the top guys on the ladder I play on, who's turn rate slows to ridiculous levels when he is loosing, is fired - I have politely declined games with him and will do so for the foreseeable future.

None of that really bothered me much because I had multiple good games on the go at the time. I'll admit taking out that Tiger was such an effort that I was actually looking forward to the rest of that game to see if I could hold on. But ah well.

[ASL Veteran]

I will put my effort where I think I will get the most benefit for me - thank you very much. At the moment I am finding *any* AI programming work extremely challenging and I am having very little success. I hope that changes with some of the very helpful design threads that are going on at the moment. But even once I get some traction I will not be concerned about "limiting what I can achieve" and nor will I be "not making an effort".

What I will be is clear about how anything I finally achieve can be played.

It depends on the context and what the audience is that you are designing to. If you are making it for yourself then whatever standard you choose is a great standard.

[ASL Veteran]

I think you're wrong. Dead wrong. The AI is so far below the standard of even a basically competent player that if you make it challenging in one direction against the AI, the force balance required to achieve that makes it a cakewalk if you reverse the direction and require human players to be of the most sporting kind to get any enjoyment out of it.

Though I'd love to be wrong: please point me at a scenario that is challenging to play from either side against the AI and a human opponent.

The AI will never be as challenging as a human opponent to an experienced player, so anyone who has that expectation is always going to be disappointed no matter how the scenario is designed. There are many scenarios that are in CMFI, GL, and CW that can be played as either side vs the AI. In fact, JonS in his scenario AAR is designing to exactly that standard which you feel is impossible. Perhaps he shouldn't be wasting his time?

This fellow here seemed to think that the AI was working just fine when he played this scenario as the British. It's now on his second page so you have to go to older posts.

http://www.casualscribbling.com/?author=1

scroll down on this page

http://www.casualscribbling.com/?author=1&paged=2

Most players probably play that one as the attacker. It seems like as far as that player was concerned the design met the standard.

[ASL Veteran]

On second thoughts, I think it's a very bad idea to open up a discussion on this as it's a minefield. We're already throwing the criticisms of other designer's work around so let's not go there. I've got nothing but respect for anybody who takes the time to create convincing work with the scenario editor, including yourself.

I'll confine my remarks to say that there are two sides in a CMx2 mission, an attacker and a defender. In MEs, both players are attackers. The AI can be scripted to do a good job of defending, no argument there but it's not a great attacker. It needs a wee bit of help to make it effective on the attack. Help that any half-decent human player can make far better use of than a scripted AI plan ever can, including using the clock. I've designed a fair few AI attacks in my time. My very first CMx2 mission, 'In Harm's Way', was a RED attack v Human US player. When I switch sides and play against the PT defensive set-up, I can blow the AI away every time. But that's just me. So, to end this post, I will continue to design missions in the way I see fit and, hopefully, BFC will think they're good enough for inclusion. When they're no longer good enough, I'll call it quits

Fair enough. You make some of the best stuff around and if you feel that you are at the top of the heap with no room for improvement then more power to you. Why you would be "worried" about scenario design moving in a direction that you don't like is what prompted my response. Jon S is designing his scenario in the scenario AAR to exactly that standard which you are worried about designs moving to. It seems fair to me that if you feel worried about the standard that others design to that perhaps it's not other's design standards that need adjusting. I know this will probably read as unfriendly, but my motives are not unfriendly. I hope you understand that.

The first rule of scenario design is to have a thick skin.

[womble]

The AI will never be as challenging as a human opponent to an experienced player...

It can be if you give it enough troops. But then it wouldn't be "playable", let alone challenging if you reversed it, so your argument would fall down.

JonS in his scenario AAR is designing to exactly that standard which you feel is impossible. Perhaps he shouldn't be wasting his time?

I'll be impressed if he manages it without having to make different versions for the AI defender, AI attacker and HvH.

That's cool. An example of a game that's challenging on the defense against an AI attacker. That's rare enough, but are you really saying that the force which allowed the AI to get a draw wouldn't have allowed the player, had they arbitrarily elected to attack rather then defend, a rather superior level of victory?

Then given that the defenders don't seem to have any long range AT assets against an armoured force, they are probably getting their jollies from battering the Brits from invulnerable positions. Fun, occasionally, maybe, but hardly challenging or particularly engaging.

No, it didn't, because he didn't play it the other way around and have just as good a time.

[JonS]

I'll be impressed if he manages it without having to make different versions for the AI defender, AI attacker and HvH.

I only ever made one release version of 18 Platoon, Be Evil Unto Him, Loamshires, NorMons, Seven Winds, Ubique, Valleys of Decision, Platoon Patrol, La Valence, le Desert, Bois de Baugin, and Kiwi Soldiers, yet they can all be played either side against the AI or H2H. Will I achieve it for TSoO? Dunno, but I expect so.

[agusto]

Well, they can be played both vs AI, but are they also equally challenging?

[sburke]

Well, they can be played both vs AI, but are they also equally challenging?

Is that really a valid question for design implementation? Are any two scenarios equally challenging?

[JonS]

That's an absurd expectation, which I refuse to engage with.

The scenarios can be played in any direction. They offer different challenges in different modes. My intention is that none of the modes are trivially easy. Beyond that, it's up to the player to decide what is fun.

Kiwi Soldiers, for example, offers a strong challenge when played as Allies against the AI. Played as Germans against the AI the Kiwis will attack competently, but a semi-decent player should be able to win. Played H2H the German player is in a stronger position, but the Allied position is far from hopeless. As a designer I consider that a successful multi-mode design.

[agusto]

Is that really a valid question for design implementation? Are any two scenarios equally challenging?

That depends on the situation. For example i think that when we have CMSF2 a meeting engagement between US and Russian forces could be designed in a way so it is roguhly equally challenging for both sides, at least when played H2H.

By the way the question was an honest one, i wasnt trying to imply any critique. I havent played any of JonS scenarios except 18 Platoon as British, i mostly play CMSF.

[ASL Veteran]

Well, they can be played both vs AI, but are they also equally challenging?

Ha! That's an interesting question and I will engage with it. If I design a scenario to be challenging as played against the AI as an AI defender I have just made a scenario that's playable by one side only. Playing as the defender or head to head isn't an option, and in fact if some have their way you wouldn't even be able to select those other options because those options would be locked out.

If I make a scenario that's challenging to be played against the AI as an AI defender and the scenario can also be played as a human defender vs an AI attacker and also head to head, then even if the scenario is only challenging vs the AI as the AI defender I have already created a better scenario with more options for the player than had I limited myself to a scenario that was only playable by one side only. Even if the AI attack plan was only good enough to defeat an average player rather than a good one I have still exceeded the design standards than if I was designing a scenario to be played against one side only. More players would be able to enjoy the scenario to boot.

[ASL Veteran]

That depends on the situation. For example i think that when we have CMSF2 a meeting engagement between US and Russian forces could be designed in a way so it is roguhly equally challenging for both sides, at least when played H2H.

By the way the question was an honest one, i wasnt trying to imply any critique. I havent played any of JonS scenarios except 18 Platoon as British, i mostly play CMSF.

If by challenging you include balancing in the equation, then it's not possible to guarantee that any scenario that you make is challenging for every player who wants to play it unless you make a scenario that's so absurd that it's not much fun for anyone, such as giving one side ten King Tigers and the player's side three jeeps and giving the player the option only to play as the Jeeps. There are so many variables and player skill levels that all a designer can do is try their best. Someone who designs a scenario to be played as one side only makes it difficult by setting traps and restricting the player to get them to follow the script that the designer has in mind. They do this because the more freedom the player has the more difficult it is to create an AI plan that can counter what the player may do. So if you are designing a scenario to be played as one side only it generally turns out to be a bad scenario for head to head play.

Thus comes the question of 'what are you aiming to achieve with Stand Alone scenarios vs Campaign scenarios?' A Campaign scenario is strictly playable by one side only. If you design a Standalone to be played as one side only then why are you bothering with making it in the first place? You might as well make a campaign if that's your design objective. There are only so many slots available on the CD that you get from BFC, and if all of the content is only tailored to that specific set of players who want a challenging game against the AI as one side only then you are alienating a lot of players who don't want to play that way. If you can acheive the same thing while at the same time broadening your scenario goal then why wouldn't you make the effort?

[ASL Veteran]

That's cool. An example of a game that's challenging on the defense against an AI attacker. That's rare enough, but are you really saying that the force which allowed the AI to get a draw wouldn't have allowed the player, had they arbitrarily elected to attack rather then defend, a rather superior level of victory?

Rather than speculate, why don't you play that scenario and find out? The attacking forces in that particular scenario are attacking at 1 to 3 odds by the way.

[agusto]

EDIT: deleted

[Paper Tiger]

if you feel that you are at the top of the heap with no room for improvement then more power to you.

Never have, and never will feel that way. I'm always pushing the envelope.

Why you would be "worried" about scenario design moving in a direction that you don't like is what prompted my response.

Two reasons. First, because I would very much like to see AI triggers make it into the game sooner rather than later. AI triggers have the potential to revolutionise the single player game. They have no use whatsoever for the H2H crowd for whom TacAI improvements would be the priority. It would be pretty easy for BFC to decide to hold off on doing the enormous amount of coding that this would entail because the community is more or less happy to play H2H.

Second. I'm not convinced that the H2H community make up the majority of BFC's customers although I'm happy to be corrected. H2H players are far more likely to frequent forums than dedicated single players. The only reason I frequent these boards as a single player is because I'm interested in designing and not for finding opponents. How many folks post here? Double or even quadruple that and you still have a customer base that's far too small to support BFC.

There's nothing strange or weird about people wanting to play a computer game against an AI opponent either. I've played computer games as long as there have been computer games to play and for almost all that time there was no option to play online or H2H. Had there been, I'd probably have evolved into a H2H player like the young folks that have been born after the Internet are. BFC have gone with a rather interesting AI option in the CMx2 engine and it is possible to craft missions that are very challenging for even an experienced player to play against the AI. Designing missions like that is my design goal and that is how I intend to develop as a designer. Even if H2H players are in the majority nowadays, I'll go the way of the dinosaur when there's no call for my work and return to designing exclusively for my own pleasure like I did with CMBB.

The first rule of scenario design is to have a thick skin.

That is just frankly absurd. Thick skin when getting feedback? No problem. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. Mark Gibson really helped me to become a better designer when I joined the team and, boy, was he abrasive. I listen and follow good advice when I'm given it and am grateful for it too. (Read the credit I gave to Mark Gibson in the briefing for 'British Mettle'). The guys who have playtested my campaigns have given me some very strong criticism too. Critical feedback is good when it's intended to help the designer to improve his work. Have a thick skin when folks just want to insult you? Different story. There are a LOT of folks around here who have just as thin a skin as I do.

[nachinus]

Even if H2H players are in the majority nowadays,

I doubt that.

I'll go the way of the dinosaur when there's no call for my work and return to designing exclusively for my own pleasure like I did with CMBB.

...just be sure to share your work, mate.

Single player speaking here!.

[A Canadian Cat]

Rather than speculate, why don't you play that scenario and find out? The attacking forces in that particular scenario are attacking at 1 to 3 odds by the way.

For reference - which scenario was that? I watched the video and I could not see which one it was.

[A Canadian Cat]

Second. I'm not convinced that the H2H community make up the majority of BFC's customers although I'm happy to be corrected. H2H players are far more likely to frequent forums than dedicated single players.

I believe you are correct. Steve has said so on several occasions. Quick search found this:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1231058&postcount=147

[ASL Veteran]

Two reasons. First, because I would very much like to see AI triggers make it into the game sooner rather than later. AI triggers have the potential to revolutionise the single player game.

The introduction of AI triggers would be welcome, but the entire process of designing for play one way vs the AI vs both ways vs the AI is different. So if you are designing to the one side vs the AI standard now, the only thing that will change if you have a trigger is that your one side vs the AI will have a more effective opponent. It won't suddenly grant you the capability of designing a scenario to be played from either side since the decision to design that way has to be made before you place a single action spot worth of weeds.

Also, don't be fooled into thinking that creating an AI plan with triggers would make an AI plan easier to make. It could make the AI a more effective opponent for certain, but with that effectiveness would come more time in the creation of the plan. You can't make something more effective if you don't spend the time making it so. So if someone can't design for play by either side without triggers now, then the introduction of triggers isn't going to change that. Besides, if making an AI attack plan is where designers stumble, well an attack plan is primarily timing, positioning, and firepower so the current AI is actually more suited towards making an attack plan now since the attacker generally sets the tempo and the defender is reactive. The current AI is not reactive in the slightest beyond what the Tac AI does and this really hurts the defending AI.

By making a defending AI plan, most designers probably just mean where they place the defenders in a static defense. That only takes a few minutes and isn't an AI plan per se because the AI isn't actually doing anything. The player is mostly just fighting the TacAI. Actually making an AI attack plan where all the AI forces are in motion and you have to get the timing between elements to work well takes a lot of time and effort - time and effort that many would rather not expend. It's a lot easier to just deploy some defenders on the map and say 'playable as the attacker vs the Tac AI defender', maybe toss in a small counterattack or have a truck move around and be done with it.

Triggers would primarily benefit the defending AI, although there are certainly areas where it could help an attacker for sure. The benefit to an attacking AI wouldn't be as dramatic though. Once again though, if someone can't design a reasonably competent AI plan now, then the addition of triggers isn't going to change anything. The designer will just have a bad AI plan that now has triggers in it.

[ASL Veteran]

For reference - which scenario was that? I watched the video and I could not see which one it was.

I don't think there was a video for that review, but I think that scenario can be found in the Gustav Line module. I think someone posted a video about Kiwi Soldiers in another thread though.

[A Canadian Cat]

You are quite correct - oops. I did watch a video AAR yesterday where a human player was defending against an AI attack. But now that I check back it was *not* this one. My mistake. Since your referenced review does not state the name of the scenario. Since he does describe a few items it should be possible to deduce it but that will have to wait until I get home tonight.

Thanks