Thought for the day... AI maps

[Nelson 1812]

Trying to adapt one of my maps to AI game, normally only do tournament maps (H2H) and it struck me that one reason for the large terrain objective, together with there being one or only two terrain objectives is that these game were designed more to cater for the AI, than H2H.

Reason for bring this matter up is that any budding map designers may in future think of creating and posting the same map twice... one for H2H play, the other for AI play.

Differences being, small and more terrain objectives for H2H... Singular and larger terrain objectives for AI use.

[simmox]

yea,i find the maps a little dull, objective wise.

so,i am in the process of modifying alot of them to suit better for QB's and the like

i have about 10 or so done at present,then maybe we can combine our modified maps for one package.

i've also made a few of my own to add.

[Chris Ferrous]

Sometimes less (objectives) is more as regards the AI behaviour, but if the objectives are diversified and increased for the human player then it can lead to choreographed behaviour resulting in linear advances or strict by rota assault on each objective.

Personally, I prefer the scoring system to be based on a limited number of objectives which means capturing the 'Big One', the one that really matters, can be achieved by any approach, and by any means the player thinks fit his purpose.

Likewise the defender is not hoodwinked into counterattacking every single tiny 'flag' on the map.

So, I prefer 'the BIG PICTURE' as regards objectives.

To be honest, a little bit of tweaking can be done by revealing or not revealing objectives, or by making them touch objectives. There's also condition, ammo, and casualty criteria that can affect the result if used properly (e.g. a defender may hold 'to the last man' but the cost could be made to outweigh the primary objective value, or the attacker could take the target only to find he musters 6 broken down guys and 20 rounds, such that an immediate counterattack in real life would simply walk back on to the objective.) So, tweaking the extra criteria can lead to some fairly subtle and I would hazard, realistic victory conditions.

In conclusion, more often than not, if the attacker fails to take the main objective then the attack has failed, so the victory conditions and objectives should reflect that.