Trigger or not to trigger

[benpark]

The best version of a trigger system that is user friendly is the Arma/Operation Flashpoint series. It is simple to throw a scenario together, with no programming knowledge- it's done through a pull-down GUI. There are more sophisticated options, but not necessary for what we understand as "quick battles".

The trick with CM would be to keep the triggers somewhat randomized, so that there were 2-3 possible outcomes for any given trigger. The scenario builder in CM has been vastly improved by the addition of randomized (based on plans set by the maker) setups and plans. If there were a reactive element (triggers) added, it would make for a much more dynamic battlefield.

For example: Counterattacks could be launched based on the player taking an area on the map. This would be a direct reflection of German doctrine, and something that is nearly impossible to do now in the editor. As it is now, the scenario maker must guess where and when the player may attack/defend. They can funnel the player by map making/artillery strikes/etc., but this can seem artificial.

With triggers, the amount of a detailed response by the AI can be calibrated with far greater control. And when it isn't controlled, it can be told to be reactive based on sets of parameters. They are necessary, sooner rather than later. For a game that the (probably vast based on past comments by BFC) majority play vs. the AI, it would be a large improvement in the perceived intelligence of the AI player.

Sample triggers that would be useful to a scenario designer:

-IF location (color location trigger size on the map) contains more than a certain percentage of enemy units vs. friendly/THEN trigger action (chose from pull down for group and action)- choices would be things like: group:spotter/call artillery on location

-IF enemy enters location/THEN trigger action (pull down menu with group and action)

-IF units in area take a selected percentage of casualties/THEN action (like pop smoke) and pull back to location (color on map)

etc, etc.

[RockinHarry]

The best version of a trigger system that is user friendly is the Arma/Operation Flashpoint series. It is simple to throw a scenario together, with no programming knowledge- it's done through a pull-down GUI. There are more sophisticated options, but not necessary for what we understand as "quick battles".

The trick with CM would be to keep the triggers somewhat randomized, so that there were 2-3 possible outcomes for any given trigger. The scenario builder in CM has been vastly improved by the addition of randomized (based on plans set by the maker) setups and plans. If there were a reactive element (triggers) added, it would make for a much more dynamic battlefield.

For example: Counterattacks could be launched based on the player taking an area on the map. This would be a direct reflection of German doctrine, and something that is nearly impossible to do now in the editor. As it is now, the scenario maker must guess where and when the player may attack/defend. They can funnel the player by map making/artillery strikes/etc., but this can seem artificial.

With triggers, the amount of a detailed response by the AI can be calibrated with far greater control. And when it isn't controlled, it can be told to be reactive based on sets of parameters. They are necessary, sooner rather than later. For a game that the (probably vast based on past comments by BFC) majority play vs. the AI, it would be a large improvement in the perceived intelligence of the AI player.

Sample triggers that would be useful to a scenario designer:

-IF location (color location trigger size on the map) contains more than a certain percentage of enemy units vs. friendly/THEN trigger action (chose from pull down for group and action)- choices would be things like: group:spotter/call artillery on location

-IF enemy enters location/THEN trigger action (pull down menu with group and action)

-IF units in area take a selected percentage of casualties/THEN action (like pop smoke) and pull back to location (color on map)

etc, etc.

+1

ARMA has a great bunch of scenario making and scripting tools, although both games can just be basically compared.

With regard to local counterattacks, can it be somehow substituted by making a campaign string? Depending on win/loose situation, the 2nd battle in the row then can be scripted accordingly, assuming the battle map is the same. Haven´t tried myself yet, thus I ask.