Glubokii Boy Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 53 minutes ago, benpark said: I'll add anything we may have missed to the list, as AI stuff is very (very) high on my own hopes for adds. Show them who is the boss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 It's already an amazing tool, and amazingly conceived to start with. I suggest things sometimes, and then realize it is already possible- in some form. There are a few things that could make it both easier to use, and be a bit more effective at replicating a human. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncc1701e Posted January 10, 2021 Author Share Posted January 10, 2021 20 hours ago, BFCElvis said: Since NCC1701 and NC1701D are long gone I am considering things like NCC I7OI or some kind of variation of that. Or NCC 1031 Or NX1701A 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 13 hours ago, benpark said: It's already an amazing tool, and amazingly conceived to start with. I suggest things sometimes, and then realize it is already possible- in some form. There are a few things that could make it both easier to use, and be a bit more effective at replicating a human. The editor may not be complicated and generally good but that does not mean that it needs no further development. Why not make in even more good and even less complicated... Hopefully we will see fewer of these in the future... On 1/6/2021 at 3:56 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said: This is always a dilemma.....I know what you are spending your time on and I'd much rather you did that! I'm in a similar position myself.....Time spent trying to diagnose WTF is going on here is time not spent making wonky islands or writing fiddly AI scripts that may or may not work as intended! On 1/6/2021 at 3:57 PM, Macisle said: I can see the benefits of variation, but from the designer's perspective, it's a PITA. It produces a need for wasteful testing time. A much better system would be for the designer to have total control, but the option to add his own, chosen variations, like with different AI Plans. On 1/6/2021 at 4:13 PM, Macisle said: Yup. I still have PTSD from all the hours of getting the opening AI attack orchestrated in the Radzy Award. Between the arty and trying to fit a reinforced battalion's advance under only 9 minutes of smoke was...well...I just don't want to think about it anymore... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 I think the editor is a great tool, I'm slowly becoming more skilled at using the AI, which can work very well on defence and in limited counterattacks, and I would also like to see the AI and its interface improved. However, while I don't object to the suggestions made, my wishes are completely different. A lot of these suggestions seem to be asking for more micromanaging, when I would like to see less. It's probably some time away, and I'm not at all displeased with the AI as it currently works, but I would like to see the day when you could just define one or two broad attacks (like: feint left, attack right), and rely on the AI to use recon, seek cover, use combined arms, respond to observed enemy and pace its attack, defence or fallback based on the actions of the human opponent's forces. It actually does not a bad job of this now. I generally get better results with fairly simple AI plans: 3-6 groups, painting broad areas of the map, and long overlapping time periods for each action. Micromanaging requires you to guess what the human player will do, and I just can't get that to work, even against myself! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhantom Posted January 11, 2021 Share Posted January 11, 2021 Absolutely agree with these. At the very least, add more AI groups! Clustering the entire platoon (or worse a company) in one AI group creates tactical idiocy. One platoon should be attached to two groups. A company would be 6 AI groups (Not including a weapons platoon... adding them would require 2 or 3 Groups!). Plus, that's not including their vehicle platoons for dismounting or in support (That would be 3 Groups!). That means, with one mechanized infantry platoon, I have used 11 or 12 AI groups.... That's why AI attack capability is so pathetic. With 32 AI groups.... Defending against the AI will be far more challenging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornGinger Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) To see more AI groups, 32 instead of 16, would be great. But if that isn't what BF wants to have, I would be ok with being able to split a group into different smaller blobs, instead of one large blob, and that way have for example a company's three squads moving together or a platoon's three squads moving together. Now if you split an AI-group up and paint three different smaller blobs on the map the platoon leader (or company leader) often move too far away from the different sections they are supposed to support. I made a thread about it but it went into hibernation quite early, like most of the threads here. Edited January 12, 2021 by BornGinger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 One thing that annoys me a little with AI plans in QBs is that sometimes (not always) the AI seems to choose inappropriate groups for a weapon type - the most annoying one being a group with movement otrders for AT guns. When I set up an AI plan, I usually have one (or two, on a larger map with more groups) completely static AI group for things like AT guns, but the AI doesn't always select it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weta_nz Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 2 hours ago, Freyberg said: One thing that annoys me a little with AI plans in QBs is that sometimes (not always) the AI seems to choose inappropriate groups for a weapon type - the most annoying one being a group with movement otrders for AT guns. When I set up an AI plan, I usually have one (or two, on a larger map with more groups) completely static AI group for things like AT guns, but the AI doesn't always select it. On a related note - I think one of the best improvements for quick battles AI design is if you could designate an AI group as Tank only, Infantry only or AT/HMG. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 28 minutes ago, weta_nz said: On a related note - I think one of the best improvements for quick battles AI design is if you could designate an AI group as Tank only, Infantry only or AT/HMG. Agreed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornGinger Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 16 hours ago, Freyberg said: When I set up an AI plan, I usually have one (or two, on a larger map with more groups) completely static AI group for things like AT guns, but the AI doesn't always select it. I did a little test with a quick battle in author mode, or what it's called, and gave an AI-group the setup order to ambush armor on 600 meters. And then in the quick battle selection window for the AI troops I picked a medium tank battalion from which I removed most of the tanks. And I picked an infantry battalion too. When I later on clicked on the red start button the AI-tank group was moved into the setup zone to ambush armor from 600 meters. If the setup zone which you set to "ambush armor" is small enough and you pick a company or platoon of something from which you remove what you don't need and add AT-guns instead, maybe that platoon or company will be placed by the AI on that setup zone. I didn't try this with AT-guns, but you can always try that yourself to see what result you get. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyberg Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 4 hours ago, BornGinger said: I did a little test with a quick battle in author mode, or what it's called, and gave an AI-group the setup order to ambush armor on 600 meters. And then in the quick battle selection window for the AI troops I picked a medium tank battalion from which I removed most of the tanks. And I picked an infantry battalion too. When I later on clicked on the red start button the AI-tank group was moved into the setup zone to ambush armor from 600 meters. If the setup zone which you set to "ambush armor" is small enough and you pick a company or platoon of something from which you remove what you don't need and add AT-guns instead, maybe that platoon or company will be placed by the AI on that setup zone. I didn't try this with AT-guns, but you can always try that yourself to see what result you get. I do something similar. I'll set up a single zone, with no orders just 'setup', covering the whole defender setup zone, set to 'ambush 1000m', so the AI can put AT guns wherever it wants (clever placement of AT guns is what it does best). Most of the time it works - but sometimes the AT guns (or some of them) end up 'limbered', trundling along slowly like sitting ducks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.