AI never in attack.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

@MOS:96B2P's 'Hill Street' scenarios are BY FAR the most fun I've ever had in CM.....I literally fell off my seat laughing at one point! 

To say it's unique would be a masive understatement.....It is AFAIK the only CM scenario where plotting a decent racing line can make a difference!

PS - I'd kill for @MOS:96B2P to have access to a third 'Grey' NPC faction, so he could add traffic and passers-by to this epic creation.

Edited October 4, 2020 by Sgt.Squarehead

[semmes]

On 10/3/2020 at 4:55 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

the following general situation;  The desire for the AI to counter attack a main attack and not be triggered by a recon probe.  In my experience the thoughtful placement of the counter attack trigger

 

However, the editor is versatile enough

 

 it seems an AI plan was created that resulted in 9 out of 10 AI tanks burning.   

 

 Also the AI attack is only as good as the designer's plan. 

 

After you learned your misunderstanding of how AI triggers worked

 

And to demonstrate the AI in action.  An AI controlled tank broke through the human forward defenses and located the human Battalion Command Post.  

 

And we are back to the beginning of the post: perfect timing /thoughtful placement.

No, I don't think that the "Editor is versatile" that's my point and most of what I have seen here is just a friendly "keep working".

No, you cannot plan a good attack. The AI is never going to send reinforcements (where needed), is never going to redeploy (to face a threat) and is never going to wait (to neutralize the threat); It is following a script unaffected by the "general situation". It is only going to be "interesting" if he HP is following one of the options the designer prepared for him.

BTW the "example" was not an scenario, only something I have seen in scenarios. Does the AI know what an unit is?, the one tank remaining is not going to  go on its own when the rest of the company has been destroyed. Myths & Heroes?

As somebody else said: where is your "thoughtful placement" in two hours?, how good is going to be that "good" designer's plan in two hours if no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy?

Yes, there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't say the same trigger can be activated by a scout and a T-70. A trigger can be activated by a scout and a trigger can be activated by a T-70; or by one AG moving forwards and backwards while trying to find a good firing position, even with a counter, even a "directional" counter.

I like your example. The Hobbit?, or a military operation?, because it looks like: a tank, moving from A through B got to C while paying attention to nothing else in he battlefield. Tank number ten, maybe?

 

From somebody else: "but figuring out ways around them". Is that the job of the designers?... the designers of the game, I mean.

 

I have seen more than a few good ideas around here, but as somebody else was saying: when are we... sorry, are we going to see them implemented, like... ever? Based on the experienced of the last... seven games?, the most reasonable expectation would be: never.

 

C'est  magnifique!, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. Pierre Joseph François Bosquet , Balaklava.

Great!, but it is not war.

[Bulletpoint]

On 10/2/2020 at 9:53 PM, semmes said:

On 9/30/2020 at 5:14 PM, Erwin said:

the AI plan (US) not only responded in a clever way but also initiated well-constructed attacks vs the human (German).  So, a very good AI attack can be created with current tools.  Since we don't experience this very often, presumably the effort takes work and a lot of playtesting.

I haven' seen i , first of all, but "responded", sure? If you attack on the right it is going  to counterattack on he right?

No, the counterattacks in that mission don't respond to anything the player does. They are just some big groups of units that are sent barrelling towards predetermined zones at predetermined times.

I felt the counterattacks were some of the weakest parts of that scenario. But it's still well worth playing.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[BornGinger]

On 10/2/2020 at 3:34 PM, RepsolCBR said:

Being able to make changes to the map in 3d would be good...but i think that i would also want to keep the 2d option

Could probably be possible if the scenario and map designer function had two tabs. Make the map in 2D in tab one and turn to tab two to see the result in 3D.

[BornGinger]

On 10/1/2020 at 2:55 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

BFC has talked on the forums about a new game engine.  So, not only are they continuing to upgrade, improve and support the current engine but are also planning for the future.

There is a thread in the CMFB section called something like "What I'd like to see in the new engine" and there are many other threads in the sections for the other games where we are discussing this and scenario design and also many threads like this one where we are discussing the AI.

Steven & Co are of course most likely already on to what changes to have in a new engine compared to the engine we are using now. And I'm quite certain they are also having a look on what we write about different changes we'd like to see to the AI and graphics and designing/ game playing limitations and whatnot.

But I still think it could be good to have a thread in the General Discussion section about what we would like to see in a new game engine and especially about what changes to the AI we'd like to have. And we could in that thread also discuss scenario design in the current game engine.

If there was one thread dedicated for this in the General Discussion section, which most likely would become a very large one as the time goes by and new people sign up, it would be easier for Steven & Co to chip in and discuss with us if they would like to instead of having to go to many different threads.