Brief Appeal to scenario designers

[pcelt]

Nearly all recent offerings have been focussed on H2H situations. I just want to request that designers do not totally ignore those of us who ony play v AI in scenarios and ln Quick battles

Thanks

[Sgt Schultz]

AI plans can be a cast iron biotch. tweak, test, tweak, test....

As much as I like seeing an AI plan that acts like anything other than a short-bus graduate, they vastly increase the time required to put out a scenario.

Then there is the balance issue. It is a non-trivial exercise to make a force that both the AI and/or a human can use without unbalancing the battle.

Now this is just me, but it took over 2 months to make my first multi-plan scenario, and it didn't get much easier for the next.

I would rather spend the time making better maps, but will return to AI plans once I get that out of my system.

[Fredrock1957]

AI plans can be a cast iron biotch. tweak, test, tweak, test....

I totally agree with this, you can spend a LOT of time workiing on AI plans, plus to make scenarios replayable you need more than one plan, perferably a minimum of three, so that is 3 times a LOT of time...

The Sie Kommen II Allied Campaign (d/l here) has 18 scenarios in it that are designed specifically for Allies vs AI, with a minimum of three AI plans per battle... Plus it has over 120 play tests over the 18 scenarios... After the finish of the Sie Kommen II Battle Pack (release this friday) which is the same 18 scenarios modified for H2H play and tested, Then there will be a release of the Sie Kommen II German Campaign that will have nine scenarios designed and tested for Axis vs AI play. I kept a breakdown on time spent on this project and to date the percentage breakdown is as follows:

Map Making = 26.26%

OOB's = 5.84%

Briefings = 11.67%

Graphics = 11.67%

AI Plans = 36.77%

VP Allocations = 7.78%

Without play tests there is over 350 hours invested. Add all the play testers etc, and I bet you can double that.

So to the OP, I think scenarios vs the AI will keep appearinig though I believe in a QB it can't be done really well... It's just adding the AI Plans is tough, I hope BFC will address some added flexibility within the AI Plan portion of the Editor as the game engine goes forward.

[G. Smiley]

Nearly all recent offerings have been focussed on H2H situations. I just want to request that designers do not totally ignore those of us who ony play v AI in scenarios and ln Quick battles

Thanks

But almost all scenarios, up to recently, were focused on AI play... so I think you still have a decent selection!

[pcelt]

G Smiley ---I am simply observing that the current trend is very much toward H2H offerings and i am just pleading that, although I accept that these are much less difficult and time-consuming for their creators than AI battles, the latter will still receive some attention and not become a dying feature . Both forms are equally significant and both need a continuing stream of new and fresh experiences. I am not pleading for one or the other but for some sort of balance of offerings for both in the future.

Cheers

[Paper Tiger]

This 'trend' is probably a result of a plea for more H2H missions from the H2H community about 4-6 weeks ago. The missions I put out were all H2H adaptions of missions designed for play against the AI which you already have (they shipped with the title).

And yes, AI plans are by far the toughest part of scenario designing. However, for a lot of you newbie designers who are doing sterling work, it was much tougher doing this without Scenario Author mode. Fortunately, it's also the part that I enjoy the most.

[GreenAsJade]

It is a non-trivial exercise to make a force that both the AI and/or a human can use without unbalancing the battle.

One thing that might simplify: my suggestion to scenario designers would be to not to try to make the scenario balanced (or consider at all) for both AI and vs Human. I'm pretty sure that a given scenario is _either_ vs AI or H2H, it seems mindbogglingly hard to make one good for both, and is likely to result in one less good for either. just a thought.

GaJ

[Fredrock1957]

One thing that might simplify: my suggestion to scenario designers would be to not to try to make the scenario balanced (or consider at all) for both AI and vs Human. I'm pretty sure that a given scenario is _either_ vs AI or H2H, it seems mindbogglingly hard to make one good for both, and is likely to result in one less good for either. just a thought.

GaJ

+1 to that... great response GaJ

[umlaut]

You´re absolutely right, GaJ.

(do I get into your sigline now? ;-))

[Sgt Schultz]

GaJ has it right.

I gave up on making one version of any battle. The AI needs what it needs, which is almost always more than a Human needs for the same task.

I want to get above 1 battle every 3 months production, so AI plans are falling by the wayside for a while.

---------

Oh and by the way....

None of us 'designers' have a certificate or anything special. You folks out there have the same editor. Help us!

You want AI plans? I will feed you battles and you figure 'em out.

Take any H2H battle that is out there now and start messing around with AI plans... then use scenario author test mode to watch your creations come to stumbling, retarded life. Then tweak them into room temprature IQ. Then they get dangerous.

See ya in a few weeks...

-

[Erwin]

I can appreciate the work that goes into CMBN scenarios and heaven knows what it takes to do campaigns.

I used to design stuff for fun for CM1, but CM2 seems so much more complex on every possible level and everything takes so long to do, whether its designing or simply playing. It often feels like a job than an entertainment. (And that increasing complexity concerns me as it parallels the way cardboard wargames got so complex in the late 70's and 80's they ran the biz off an economic cliff.)

[Chek]

Without play tests there is over 350 hours invested. Add all the play testers etc, and I bet you can double that..

Bloody hell Fredrock if you ain't single you soon will be.

[snake_eye]

I agree with the facts that making a scenario A.I for a single battle takes time and more if you are making a campaign. However, I disagree about the number of A.I plans that are sometimes made.

When you have a map made for a battle, more or less it is made with a precise idea. That is an attack, an encounter and or a defence. More, are you making it for being played only by one side against the A.I or by either one against the A.I ?

From these answers the map will be done to be able to adjust the OOB to the posture being chosen.

If you want the scenario to be realistic and playable, you can bet that one side will be having a certain advantage against the other.

On my part, I always try to give that advantage at the A.I. At least at the beginning since the behaviour of the A.I for excellent it is, from what we have seen in the past, will not be able to match the player ability at one moment or another.

When it comes to the A.I plan, the difficulty is to have it done in a way that the orders in defence and or attack fit in a window of feasibility and normality. If it goes out of it, the player will have a battle that does not seem to be credible.

That brings us to the tactics that a designer has to employ into it’s A.I. You don’t have to be a retired military or in activity, to do these. However, you must have a sound knowledge of the ones that could be employed and of the national armies being used in the game.

You are trying to make a battle and not a shoot them up.

That is why, I have found that in some scenarios, the tactics to be used were rather in favour of one A.I plan. It is quite not necessary to have more of them, since they are not that many ways to make another plan giving you the advantage of the first one made.

If you consider the possible movements of the enemy due to the landscape, the ground nature (hard, soft, road…) the weather (wet, muddy…. ), there are not many alternatives.

You still can make another A.I plans but besides playing around with the time schedule and some units, the overall features of the attack and or defence will be about the same.

That is why, I normally, besides some specific situations, prefer one good A.I plan that few of them far away from a credible fight.

One last thing, I am still surprise to see, is the number of units remaining at the end of some attack battle. More than one time, I have thought, that if I had know that they were there, I would not have played the battle, since the principle of an attack are that if you do so with less than 3 against 1, you better not do it. That principle was sound for WWII, KOREA and even Vietnam. With the new technologies, it is not exactly true now days except if these are not present.

Another thing that has changed is the 3 units or triangle that ruled for centuries the tactical movement of units. It is becoming now the 4 units (square, rectangle). But that rule is against armies and not irregular forces.

When fighting against irregulars other tactics have to be used.

Irregulars A.I tactics are the ones that permit more than one A.I plan and in that case and only it, I am making different ones.

You don’t make A.I plans for B-N like the ones made for CMSF or reverse, unless you don’t care about the player:D

[Pak40]

Some of you scenario designers need to chime in on my thread. I've listed some fairly simple but time saving ideas that can really help scenario designers. We need more suggestions and more importantly need to bring these to the attention of BFC and the Beta testers.

[snake_eye]

Some of you scenario designers need to chime in on my thread. I've listed some fairly simple but time saving ideas that can really help scenario designers. We need more suggestions and more importantly need to bring these to the attention of BFC and the Beta testers.

I have read your post. I think that the proposal to paste one A.I plan and slightly modify it, that is in the same scenario is excellent.

That way you could have two, three and more A.I plans for an action with different timing and slight position changes. These could completely change the out coming of the first A.I plan action. A player will be surprised while playing a second time that battle to see that the enemy is not going to be exactly at the same spot and time

With that copy-pasting proposal you rejoin what I have written in the post and permit to a designer to gain time when doing the A.I plans:

“You still can make another A.I plans but besides playing around with the time schedule and some units, the overall features of the attack and or defence will be about the same.”

For the overlay and the road automated positioning, I don’t agree. Firstly for technical reasons and secondly for having in the past used different architect design tools with some automated function. You got something on the screen, but it was not what you wanted.

[Pak40]

I have read your post. I think that the proposal to paste one A.I plan and slightly modify it, that is in the same scenario is excellent.

That way you could have two, three and more A.I plans for an action with different timing and slight position changes. These could completely change the out coming of the first A.I plan action. A player will be surprised while playing a second time that battle to see that the enemy is not going to be exactly at the same spot and time

With that copy-pasting proposal you rejoin what I have written in the post and permit to a designer to gain time when doing the A.I plans:

“You still can make another A.I plans but besides playing around with the time schedule and some units, the overall features of the attack and or defence will be about the same.”

Yes, exactly my thoughts process.

For the overlay and the road automated positioning, I don’t agree. Firstly for technical reasons and secondly for having in the past used different architect design tools with some automated function. You got something on the screen, but it was not what you wanted.

Well, the technical reasons are really just a question of how much coding it would take to do it and if BFC thinks that it's worth the time & resources. It's certainly technically possible. And you're correct, you might not always get what you want but you would still have the ability to go back and change what you don't like.

Imagine laying out a 45 degree road that's 200 meters long. As it is now, you have to click on every single 8m square with alternating tiles. That's a total of 50 clicks specifically placed. The automated way would be a simple two clicks.

[snake_eye]

[quote=Pak40;1325657

Well, the technical reasons are really just a question of how much coding it would take to do it and if BFC thinks that it's worth the time & resources. It's certainly technically possible. And you're correct, you might not always get what you want but you would still have the ability to go back and change what you don't like.

Imagine laying out a 45 degree road that's 200 meters long. As it is now, you have to click on every single 8m square with alternating tiles. That's a total of 50 clicks specifically placed. The automated way would be a simple two clicks.

[Sarge]

i'm just putting finishing .... well, beta finishing touches on my 1st attempt at scenario design with CMBN.

i am finding the Ai task, very intimidating. i'm reading, but afraid the explanation is not clear enough for me to assign 'unit objectives'.. i thought meant give a specific unit one of the board objectives, but upon further trial and error, it is apparently when one side is given the task to find/fight the designated unit... i think anyway ~ i'm trying

[snake_eye]

i'm just putting finishing .... well, beta finishing touches on my 1st attempt at scenario design with CMBN.

i am finding the Ai task, very intimidating. i'm reading, but afraid the explanation is not clear enough for me to assign 'unit objectives'.. i thought meant give a specific unit one of the board objectives, but upon further trial and error, it is apparently when one side is given the task to find/fight the designated unit... i think anyway ~ i'm trying

Assign unit means to designate an ennemy unit with a U1 to U7 number that you have given it in the Units board.

Then you can assign different goals like Spot, Destroy........

You can name it and attribute points that will make a difference for the battle result.

The same goes with ground objectives with different goals, but that time you have to paint that objective on the map to designate it

You can further more have the player, the enemy and or neither know about these objectives.

When the gamme AAR comes you can see the units and the objectives if they were set to be seen. That is pretty handy to see what has been really done and up to what point.

[Sarge]

thanks "snake eye" ~ i saw and understand the secondary assignments

"Then you can assign different goals like Spot, Destroy........

You can name it and attribute points that will make a difference for the battle result."

and the ground objectives, but what i don't get is the Ai assigning of anything, when i'm in the Ai pull down of the editor.

i saw that it instructs to assign a unit using the "F" keys... but it also says to use the "F" keys for another portion of assignments.. (forget now which it was) and so if/when i go back to the purchase units screen, how does the "F" key assignment know for which portion of the objectives i'm using?

it would be easier (for me?) if when assigning anything, that the units already purchased would now be on screen and selectable for each command - wouldn't it?

[snake_eye]

thanks "snake eye" ~ i saw and understand the secondary assignments

"Then you can assign different goals like Spot, Destroy........

You can name it and attribute points that will make a difference for the battle result."

and the ground objectives, but what i don't get is the Ai assigning of anything, when i'm in the Ai pull down of the editor.

i saw that it instructs to assign a unit using the "F" keys... but it also says to use the "F" keys for another portion of assignments.. (forget now which it was) and so if/when i go back to the purchase units screen, how does the "F" key assignment know for which portion of the objectives i'm using?

it would be easier (for me?) if when assigning anything, that the units already purchased would now be on screen and selectable for each command - wouldn't it?

About the units within the A.I scope:

You must attribute a designation to the units chosen.

The F1 to F8 keys giving a A1 to A8 designation

A1 is by default for all units not being designated by another suffix. You won’t see it in the board but it appears in the box of the units during their 3D deployment.

The R1 to R7 designation for reinforcement, are attributed with the adequate keyboard keys left arrow and a number from the upper keyboard section (do not use the right numbers keyboard)

So, F1 to F8 keys (A1 to A8) will permit to know which units you are ordering in the A.I editor.

Group 1 is A1, Group 2 is A2 and so on…..

When you are in a group the first order is the setup, then it goes up to 16. That is the maximum orders you can give to a group.

You can within the 3D deployment screen choose a position where you can dispose the A2 units and all others, as a matter of fact. You can have them face the enemy or look elsewhere, you can deploy or not the HMG and MG , that is up to you.

You can then go to the next order, the number 2, into the A.I editor (you must leave the 3D deployment screen)and paint a path on the map, use the good orders and time setting.

You have to try it and get the feeling of that A. I editor. It is not that easy and only many mistakes will allow you to find your way toward a good result.

The setting are tricky and you better try them on a small map without anything on it but a vehicle and or a squad and see how they react to the A.I commands, you are giving them. Once you are familiar with them, you can duplicate them in your scenario