More centralised AI-groups for better game play

[Macisle]

Speaking of the SP experience, the QB system is a vital piece of that. I know I spend most of my CM gaming time there.

Well, I recently noticed that terrain triggers don't seem to function in the QB environment. If that is the case, I would hope BF sets making them work as a top priority. I'd really, really like to have that functionality for the QB maps I will be making from my urban map for CMRT.

One of the big goals for my map is giving players a sandbox where they can use the full roster of available arty for opening barrages without having to worry about it being overpowered. Not having the ability to have AI troops hide and be triggered to unhide can be the difference between an AI defense taking light/medium casualties, but still retaining sharp teeth and a small, toothless group of shell-shocked remnants wandering in the streets and alleys post barrage.

[MikeyD]

Most players most of the time play as the aggressor/attacker in scenarios against a more-or-less stationary defensive AI. That doesn't exactly show the AI in the best light. You need to play against a purpose-designed attacking AI to see what it can do. For example, let the Germans attack you in the CMFI scenario 'Riva Ridge' or let the Americans attack you in 'Pursuit Force', or in CMSF2 let the Germans assault your position in '25km to Suran' or let the British attack you in 'Industrial City'. All are the opposite of the side  that typically gets played. You're missing the AI working hard if you don't play the defender.

If you're making a scenario and don't have enough groups for AI orders a simple fix is to make a smaller scenario. There's no rule that says you're obliged to test the limits of the game with every scenario you make.

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, Macisle said:

This means that, as things stand, the human player simply needs to hit an urban area with arty to permanently flush the AI from higher building positions for the duration of a scenario. That puts the AI at a huge disadvantage when it doesn't have to be and kinda kills the point of having all those tall buildings...

Fortunately, this has been fixed in everything but CMRT.

As for the safest place to be, my own experience is that it's safer on top floors. I believe it's because it's farther from shells bursting on the ground around the building, and because you need a direct hit on the actual floor to do any damage. Even large shells hitting the floor just above or below seem to be doing very little damage if any at all. You can replicate this by tank fire. Put a team on the second floor and fire away at the first floor. Does the team take any casualties? I find they don't.

But we agree that if there are other modular buildings all the way around, that gives very good protection.

[Glubokii Boy]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

If you're making a scenario and don't have enough groups for AI orders a simple fix is to make a smaller scenario. 

The thing with the current number of AI groups is that it is making it difficult to afford to put the SPECIALIST TEAMS into seperate AI groups...

Things like machineguns, flamethrowers, snipers, scouts, AT-teams...

If these teams gets bunched together with a group of regular riflemen the AI does not use them very well imo.

In many situarions having the supporting vehichles in their own AI groups would also be preferable...especially on 'cramped' maps to help with pathfinding if nothing else.

 

 

[Glubokii Boy]

And with more AI groups avaliable you could evev waist a few of them on flavour

Having the AI do things that might not be all that important...but bring a bit more 'life' into the scernarios...

Things like...

- Moving supplytrucks out of harms way

- having officers or messangers move about between various possitions

- small reinforcements comming up to a possition

[Zveroboy1]

Also it is simple dropdown menu.  It is not as if BFC would have to redo the whole editor interface. It is a simple menu. I mean come on. This a really simple thing to add. Just make it so when you reach the bottom of the menu, it automatically scrolls down to the extra groups when you use the mouse wheel or with a down arrow press or something. It would make lots of scenario designers happy even if most people never use all the groups for a fraction of the workload it would take to improve the AI.

[Glubokii Boy]

8 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Also it is simple dropdown menu.  It is not as if BFC would have to redo the whole editor interface. It is a simple menu. I mean come on. 

Yeah...they did it with the AI-orders iirc...let's do the same with AI groups...and preferably also terrainobjectives...

 

[ThePhantom]

The problem is not the AI. The AI is effective at point of contact. It's how the group is planned out. A platoon, 3 halftracks, an HMG team in Group 2 (example) gets clustered as it presses forward. It's a mess. Watch the madness when you test your scenario. However, disband Group 2 and make it Group 2 Infantry Command section (Leader with 1 Squad)... Group 3 Infantry (2 Squads)... Group 4 HMG... Group 5 Halftracks. Yes, it's micro managing (That's actually called planning). However, it creates a highly effective assaulting force (and defending for that matter). You will see that AI will accomplish what the scenario designer is attempting to accomplish. Use triggers, and the AI becomes a formidable force. Just like the original 8 AI Group problem.... 16 AI Groups is an avoidable constraint.