Which is better?

[GSX]

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'd echo that statement. Iused to love playing head to head but due to circumstance and various other elements have pretty much come round to playing solo these days. I appreciate anyone who can design anything in CMBN as I have almost no talent for it whatesoever. So to everyone out there that can and do make anything, I'd say thanks for all the effort and please keep doing it, whether its designed for solo or H2H.

Cheers

[PeterH]

Good morning gentlemen!

I received a message on my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/RetepTheEyeCandy pointing me over here and asking which mission I was writing about in my blog over here www.casualscribbling.com. The mission is called "GL Men With Suspicious Hats" which I should have stated in my AAR.

That being said, please do not judge the AI on my playthrough! I'am at best mediocre and have only just started on the wargame scene. While I'am thoroughly enjoying myself and learning more as I go, I'am not adept enough to state whether the AI was performing well or I was just being decidedly stupid in the placement of my jolly English units. The person who stated that the scenario features the Germans attacking with 1:3 odds is correct, the British have the town and the numbers, while the Germans have the armour and lots of MGs.

I'am very pleased to see folk have read the AAR and would be interested to hear some suggestions for further content, feel free to PM me (it would be off-topic here).

[Wodin]

I only play against the AI and any new feature that will improve it is massive from my perspective. I've noticed over the years that gamers who only play against other people only seem to come across as looking down on those who play an AI and have the opinion those who do are of no consequence and any feature to do with the AI is a waste of time. I does annoy at times. I'm happy people can play others and don't have any issues when they bring up something that would help with that..

I got into PC games back in the early eighties because you could play something you like without having to drag someone else along to play it who may not be bothered. That was the beauty of PC gaming..and I still stick with that...the only game I will play online is something like Red Orchestra 2..as you can drop in and out whenever you fancy. Where as a wargame you have to keep playing even if your not in the mood just to keep the turns ticking over. I then end up resenting the game and stop playing altogether because after playing someone else the AI isn't the same, so in the end it ruins the game for me (thats why I never bother with Squad Battles anymore..even though I loved it I can't face the AI anymore but neither want to be tied to it playing others).

ASL..come one now. Those who play each other have Quick battles that cater for them..something that really is redundant for those who play the AI..so please don't begrudge us our scenarios designed to be played against the AI..thats very selfish to be honest. Remember you have a huge feature you can use..and there are many players who prefer playing the AI so please think of them. Also I notice there are alot more scenarios being released HtH only these days..so again you already probably have alot more choice than we do (well considering QB you have massive amount more choice).

[ASL Veteran]

ASL..come one now. Those who play each other have Quick battles that cater for them..something that really is redundant for those who play the AI..so please don't begrudge us our scenarios designed to be played against the AI..thats very selfish to be honest. Remember you have a huge feature you can use..and there are many players who prefer playing the AI so please think of them. Also I notice there are alot more scenarios being released HtH only these days..so again you already probably have alot more choice than we do (well considering QB you have massive amount more choice).

Who is saying that we don't need any scenarios playable vs the AI? Certainly not me. In fact, I think playable against the AI is an absolute requirement for any scenario on the CD. I'm at an absolute loss as to why people are reading my posts and getting that impression out of them. :confused: I would never, ever, advocate the creation of a scenario that had no AI plans at all for either side. That would be ridiculous.

If you want to play against the AI, wouldn't having a scenario as playable vs the AI as either side be much better than having something playable as only one side? It doubles your options .... what am I missing here? Oh, and people do play Quick Battles vs the AI in spite of it's limitations (there are only two or three groups available per side and the one making the plan can't tailor the plan to a specific force).

[A Canadian Cat]

I only play against the AI and any new feature that will improve it is massive from my perspective. I've noticed over the years that gamers who only play against other people only seem to come across as looking down on those who play an AI and have the opinion those who do are of no consequence and any feature to do with the AI is a waste of time. I does annoy at times.

I really hope I have not given that impression - cause I don't want to. I would agree that improving the AI would be a good thing. Right now I very rarely play against the AI and I often give up on games because they just are not as fun as the ones I am playing against other humans. So, improving the AI would be great.

I got into PC games back in the early eighties because you could play something you like without having to drag someone else along to play it who may not be bothered. That was the beauty of PC gaming..

<sinp>

you have to keep playing even if your not in the mood just to keep the turns ticking over. I then end up resenting the game and stop playing altogether because after playing someone else the AI isn't the same, so in the end it ruins the game for me

Indeed this game is great for that - no more carving out entire days trying to get everyone together in person. Frankly it really never worked when I was younger and now with a family - it is not even worth trying. So this game has defiantly been great. I only wish I knew about its existence 10 years ago I would have been playing this whole time.

ASL..come one now. Those who play each other have Quick battles that cater for them..something that really is redundant for those who play the AI..so please don't begrudge us our scenarios designed to be played against the AI..thats very selfish to be honest.

Yeah ASL was advocating for just what you want. He was the one telling us that we should consider ourselves a failure for not creating a scenario that was playable both H2H and against the AI from both sides. Yes, I am exaggerating - just a little. I was the one that was dismissing that idea - sorry man. I cannot say that it will change what I do in the future. I have one scenario that has been stalled for ages due to challenges programming the AI and for that one the plan all along was for it to be playable only one way against the AI. So, no promises but your post goes remind us all that the majority of players play against the AI exclusively.

[Wodin]

ASL Sorry mate...got confused ...was looking at Paper Tigers replies and it all got confusing..I take back what I said.

Ian..so it's you I should have told off...only messing.. no worries...

Again sorry ASL..

[Paper Tiger]

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.

All the content that ships with the disk must be playable both ways, at least theoretically. This has been the standard BFC set since I first asked shortly after I joined the team. I crafted seven stand-alones for the CMSF Brit module and was surprised that I had to include AI plans for the intended 'AI-side'. Which I did after receiving this instruction. This did not mean that playing the 'AI side' would offer an experienced player an enjoyable challenge but it guaranteed that the customer who did so wouldn't sit out a frustrating wait for an AI attacker to do nothing because it had no AI plans telling it to move from its set up zones. I even tried to even it up as much as possible when I did so.

The very best example of that was the mission 'Sabres at dawn' in which I devised two AI plans to the Brit attacker. Once I got started, I found myself strengthening the Brit player so that it could make an effective attack. But when I went back to playing the new, balanced version as the Brits v the Syrian AI, I could slaughter the Syrians with my new Brit force. For me, I found that strengthening the AI side a bit to allow it to offer a challenge just reduced the challenge when it was played the way it was intended to play, Brit vs Syrian AI.

As Womble said, the AI just isn't up to providing the same level of challenge to a human player as another human player is without some help being given to the AI side. Help that ruins the H2H balance. Just one example relevent to the upcoming MG module. The AI just isn't going to be able to drive a column of tanks up Hell's Highway uncovering enemy positions on a 2.5km long map, reacting to them effectively using all the assets available to it to neutralise them and exiting the board before the clock runs out. It will blindly follow its chosen plan and won't make any adjustments to its plan as the situation develops even if it is getting absolutely slaughtered in the process. It is utterly ignorant of any scenario defined parameters or objectives or even the length of time of the mission so it will play without regard for casualties taken, ammo expended, condition of enemy forces, lack of control of said objectives, preserving or destroying terrain etc, etc. All it will attempt to do is reach its next objective within the alloted time. There are so many things that it just can't do at all either regardless of how devious and skilled the designer is. For example, we know that the AI infantry can't lay smoke nor will the AI opponent use smoke in an artillery barrage except as part of a designer-planned pre-strike. I can't even add a five-minute delay to its opening barrage so there's not even an option to keep the player guessing. So the AI needs a bit of help in a mission if it is going to offer a real challenge for a good player.

My original concern is that the design emphasis is moving towards a balance point so that most, if not all the missions are best played H2H with the single player getting a compromise. This concern was prompted when I read a post saying that the scenaios play great H2H. To me, this suggests that the stand-alone missions for GL are reasonably balanced for H2H play instead of weighted for play as one side against an AI opponent. Since I wasn't in on Fortress Italy or Gustav Line, basically the last year of BFC's actual playable output, I wasn't aware that there was supposed to be more emphasis on keeping them playable from both sides. I missed that memo and so I made the mistake of expressing some concern.

[Wodin]

Ouch that sounds pretty disappointing..for one I hope BF add some new features for the AI like triggers and next I really hope they aren't slowly going to leave the SP player behind and cater more for the HtH players..if so that will be a huge blow. I really hope it doesn't end up that I have to wait for a Kickstarter to come along to fulfill my wargaming dreams.

[Paper Tiger]

Ouch that sounds pretty disappointing..for one I hope BF add some new features for the AI like triggers and next I really hope they aren't slowly going to leave the SP player behind and cater more for the HtH players..if so that will be a huge blow. I really hope it doesn't end up that I have to wait for a Kickstarter to come along to fulfill my wargaming dreams.

I don't think you have much to worry about in spite of the stated desire to have them all playable both ways. Most designers will still make them play best as one side v the AI. I think perhaps ASL Vet believes that I design stand-alone missions for the disk with NO AI Plans for the human side when of course that is completely contrary to BFC's stated wishes. Of course, the stand-alones that I have under development for the module right now don't have any AI plans for the 'human side' yet and so may lend weight to his concern. Of course they will have AI plans added later but I'm not going to alter the balance of the mission to make the mission a tad more challenging when playing against the 'human side'.

[Freyberg]

I understand how you guys feel about H2H play. Personally I don't mind if an opponent takes a break from a game, although I do like to finish them eventually. It's not good form to expect anyone to impinge upon their Real Life to the point of losing enjoyment for a game, although I know most H2H players can be quite impatient. I have a life too, and I do get annoyed by sniffy messages if I don't return a move for 48 hours. But its worth it, and over at the Blitz I'm slowly building up a small set of really good gentlemanly opponents.

One form of solitary play I enjoy is playing Hotseat against myself! It can be surprisingly engaging. I actually get quite aggressive and competitive towards the opponent, even though it's myself; and with the excellent spotting in the game, it's really not difficult to 'play it blind' so to speak. It's a very fun way to develop a scenario, too.

[Paper Tiger]

Yeah ASL was advocating for just what you want. He was the one telling us that we should consider ourselves a failure for not creating a scenario that was playable both H2H and against the AI from both sides. Yes, I am exaggerating - just a little.

What ASL Vets seems to be primarily concerned about is why you should design for only a small portion of the community when you can design for a larger portion? Missions playable against the AI from both sides has completely different meanings for us. This is really what we're 'arguing' about. He's not denying that playing against an AI opponent can be very challenging when that mission is crafted by a good designer with a good grasp of the AI scripting tools. He's concerned about pleasing the largest possible audience with his work and that's good business sense. But scenario design is not 'business' for me. Its my hobby. I design for pleasure and not with business in mind.

I would never, ever, advocate the creation of a scenario that had no AI plans at all for either side. That would be ridiculous.

These would be H2H only missions. Neither of us design them and neither of us are arguing in favour of them.

If you want to play against the AI, wouldn't having a scenario as playable vs the AI as either side be much better than having something playable as only one side? It doubles your options .... what am I missing here?

This is where we disagree. I have already demonstrated in an earlier post (#57) that in my experience, making them playable both ways results in making them less challenging in both directions. Yes, you can play them both ways against the AI but that comes at the expense of a providing a REAL challenge when it can only be played as one side v the AI. For me, designing them to be playable from either side means that neither side presents a real challenge for a decent player.

My design strategy is to make them as challenging and as fun to play as one side against the AI as possible. Throughout the playtesting period I will either pare down one side or the other, or build one up depending on the situation until I find the sweet spot, the point where the human controlled side has to work really hard to get a win against the AI. He obviously doesn't design that way and he doesn't understand why people do so we'll never agree.

And I definitely do not consider myself a failure as a scenario designer because I design this way. And I don't consider him a failure for not doing so either.

[Paper Tiger]

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.

I'm not sure what to make of this post. :confused: First, you seem to agree in the first paragraph that they would indeed make the AI opponent more challenging when a mission is designed for single-play only. I agree 100% with you I don't care about the ability to make them more challenging when played both ways :confused:. Maybe I should but it's already a done deal when I start to design ANYTHING for this game that it will be for single-play only.

I also have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that I think creating AI plans with triggers will be easy. Please explain your reason for making that remark as it is intensely patronising. I am a very serious AI planner. It's absolutely my favourite aspect of scenario design, by far! So what if it will be harder work? I will enjoy the extra options and I relish them. Bring it on! Surely you, as a designer of scenarios not intended for H2H play only must relish that challenge too?

The last two paragraphs seem to imply that if something is hard to do, then it's not worth doing. That AI triggers will make bad designers worse and better designers better. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in those two paragraphs. It sounds like you think AI triggers would not be welcome after all .

[Macisle]

I think it's fine to design H2H-only scenarios, and/or scenarios that have AI plans for only one side. The designer just needs to make sure that people know what is included before downloading/playing it.

If a designer can cover all the AI bases, then great and more power to them. However, some maps/scenarios are very hard to impossible to make work for the current AI system in CMx2. I'd much rather have designers complete and make available good H2H or one-side-only AI scenarios than give up on producing something otherwise worthy because they cannot fit some ideal standard of 2-way SP + H2H or nothing.

I'd love to see BF add triggers, synchronized waypoints, multiple force mixes (one for AI and another for human), more customizable AI arty, and a host of other features. It would all be a big plus for the game.

A couple of weeks ago, I caught Iron Front: Liberation 1944 on sale. It's apples to oranges gameplay-wise, I know (being 1st-person + some tactical vs. tactical command-only in CM), but I've been wowed both by the game and by the editor. In fact, I haven't even spent more than a couple of hours playing published scenarios for it. I've been too busy jumping into the editor and setting up my own, big single-player battles (I feel like I live in Staszow!). The Arma II engine offers amazing depth in scenario-construction (but the included documentation is largely non-existent, so you have hunt online for how-2s).

It is very interesting to see how another engine does things. Again, I'd sure love to see BF greatly expand the scenario editor capabilities in the CM series (and I'd love to see Iron Front add full crews for mortars and ATGs...).

[Baneman]

... The designer just needs to make sure that people know what is included before downloading/playing it.

...

This.

As long as you know what you're getting, who gives a monkeys what the designer didn't create. You create what you can.