Glubokii Boy Posted January 10, 2022 Share Posted January 10, 2022 I know this had been discussed before but hey...why not mention it again ? BCF can we please, please have the number of avaliable AI groups increased ? Surely it will be a faily simple thing to add. The only thing needed will be some slight alteration to the editor UI. Increasing the number of AI groups will have no/very limited impact on FPS nor will it put any higher demand on the Tac AI. A simple UI change is all that is needed. A few things i could not do in the last scenario i created...limited ONLY by the lack of AI-groups. - Setting different stances and engagementzones (hide, ambush XXX, ambush armour XXX, active etc.) for a number of units that remained in AI group 1. All those units revealed them self at will (not parfect)...Thereby lowering the quality of the AI. - Having the various units that remained in AI group 1 repossition from one possition to another as desired. For example it would have been nice if i could have had a number of teams with hand held AT weapons triggered to move forward to their fiering possition at a sutable time when then player moved some armour into range. Before this move they could remaine 'hiden' in a hard to spot location and not nedlesly be spotted or engaged by player infantry from fairly long ranges. Also...It would have been nice if some of the regular rifle squads and perhaps HMG teams that remained in AI group 1 could have been able to repossitioned sligtely after a short while at a certain possiton...To make it more difficult for the player to bring sutable firepower to kill them off. Not doable because of lack of AI-groups. Unfortunatelly. - Keepeing all required AI groups to a decent size for their task. In a few AI groups i was forced to place more squads then desired into the same AI group with the all to predictable consequence of seeing zigg-zagging enemy counterattacks moving forward or...to avoid this being forced to bunch them upp on a very narrow path. This zigg-zagging on the part of the AI is completally riddicolous, frustrating, boring and unrealistic. Being able to avoid this noncence would be preferable. - Having multiple options for AI on-map mortar support using triggers. Not doable ! I could only afford to use ONE AI group as a mortar support team. This very much limited the possibility to asign multiple different target alternatives to the AI mortar battery. the simple reason for this is that if the player does not move into the zone and trigger the bombardedment for option ONE...None of the other options will be avaliable either since the AI group is waitning for the first trigger to spring...Wich it does not do...Unless the designer puts in a 'failsafe' with the gameclock but doing this may well look a bit silly if the player is nowhere near that area when the clock strikes. Having the option to afford to put more then ONE AI group into the mortar support would be preferable. In such a situation each AI group could be given its own triggerzone that would set off that barrage. Easier to program on the part of the designer and probably more fun to play if the AI seems to be able to react somewhat more intelligently to the evolving situation. I'm aware of the fact the a scenario designer might be able to squize a few more AI-groups out of the game by using some clever tricks but this is unneccesarely complicated imo. What i managed to do in this last scenario was to subsequently use the mortar AI group as an infantry AI-group to do a counter attack once the mortar team had done its bomardment (having put the mortars inside an area surrounded by high wall without any doors and put the infantry as a reinforcement.) I was able to use ONE of the armour AI-groups as an infantry counter attack using simular technics. The infantry arrived as reinforcements after the armour had finished its last waypoint (i had to be sure the tank would actually do that in order to be able to use this group). When i restricted this AI-groups infantry counter attack to only use waypoints inside buildings the initial armour would not be able to move there and subsequently neglect those movements. leaving the infantry of the same group to do their thing...Using some other tweaks i managed to squeeze out 19 AI groups for this scenario...Had i had 10-15 more that would have been awesome...but sadely no. Well...What the hell did you do with all those AI-groups you might ask...The majority of those where used to allow the AI forces to show some sign of life/movement...repossitioning, various small counterattacking groups. I realice that you don't have to do that in a scenario...A large part of the AI may in many situations remain stationary and simply wait to be routed out of place or outright killed off. However. I really feel that it increases the imersion of a scenario if you as the player sees the enemy moving around on the battlefield and for this reason among others i really wish we could have the number of AI groups increased. To allow for both manuvering AI, Stance changing AI as well as mortar supported AI in the same scenario....That would be nice ! And really it is not that difficult to do if only you have the tools you need avaliable...That is increased number of AI groups and preferably also an increased number of terrainobjectives (triggers)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BornGinger Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 We'll see what news and maybe surprises Steven and Co. will have planned for and we'll get information about in that "new years bones" we are waiting for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 24 minutes ago, BornGinger said: We'll see what news and maybe surprises Steven and Co. will have planned for and we'll get information about in that "new years bones" we are waiting for. Yepp....i'm really hoping V.5 will include some scenario editor updates...Including more AI groups ...as that would be the fastest and easiest way to improve the AI in one player games.... Looking forward to any new info on V.5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 You can expand (snowball) and recycle AI Groups with a bit of forethought.....Exit Zones make this much easier, but they also complicate VP allocations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 45 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: You can expand (snowball) and recycle AI Groups with a bit of forethought.....Exit Zones make this much easier, but they also complicate VP allocations. Yes i know In an ideal situation you can...But do you have a solution for this problem ? If you intend to use a 'moving' AI group (one with multiple waypoints) a second time to perform a different task with a different unit (comming in as a reinforcement later) you better make sure that the original (first) unit of this shared AI group reaches its intended target or else the second unit (reinforcement) that was intended to start its move using the first waypoint in the second mission will instead head for the next remaining waypoint that the first unit failed to reach in its mission...NO ? I hope you can understand what i'm trying to explain here Can a waypoint in an AI plan be skipped using the gameclock even if the corresponding unit has not reached that intended location...? that would perhaps be a solution but i don't know if that works...Other then that i don't know how to solve this problem... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 On 1/10/2022 at 1:08 PM, Glubokii Boy said: What the hell did you do with all those AI-groups you might ask. I don't begrudge this request at all. I am with you. For those of us with our heads down in the editor, maybe a rare group by percentage, this going from just 8 to just 16 was wonderful. Now I am a tiny/small scenario guy and with just 16 slots for my tiny scenarios, wow, we need more. Just last night I am shoving a team in with an HQ because I am out of slots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said: If you intend to use a 'moving' AI group (one with multiple waypoints) a second time to perform a different task with a different unit (comming in as a reinforcement later) you better make sure that the original (first) unit of this shared AI group reaches its intended target or else the second unit (reinforcement) that was intended to start its move using the first waypoint in the second mission will instead head for the next remaining waypoint that the first unit failed to reach in its mission...NO ? No. The order is executed at the initial timing. The newly arrived units will remain stationary until the AI Group receives a fresh order. Any survivors from the initial AI Group will then attempt to folow the new orders along with the new units. Edited January 11, 2022 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 26 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: No. The order is executed at the initial timing. The newly arrived units will remain stationary until the AI Group receives a fresh order. Any survivors from the initial AI Group will then attempt to folow the new orders along with the new units. Yes this is the problem i'm afraid... I agree with you that in the right surcomstances you can indeed share AI groups to get more out of them but this is limited to very specific cercomstances in my experience. I did manage to squize out a few multi mission AI groups in my - Odessa will be ours - scenario refrenced in my initial post. I just realiced that i missed a detail in the example i mentioned in my last post...That example would never work either...In order for it to work the first unit would be required to reach its intended final possition and then get KILLED ! The intention with the second part of that AI-order was to have a second move done by a second team completally independant on the first units mission. The first unit was not ment to take part in the second part of that AI-plan...but it would indeed do so unless it was killed off....A fail ! See...Many, many cercumstances has to be right to be able to re-use an AI group for a second entirely different mission. Very complicated and very unneccesary imo... As i mention above though...I did manage to do it with a few AI groups in the Odessa scenario...3 out of 16 AI groups could be re-used. Having a bunch of entirely NEW, fresh AI groups to assign rather then having to tweaky, tweaky until your head spins would indeed be preferable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 42 minutes ago, kohlenklau said: Just last night I am shoving a team in with an HQ because I am out of slots. I share this experience 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 Maybe this is a somewhat simpler explanation of what i'm trying to say What you can do easily... Have an AI group do ONE mission and using reinforcements to add additional units to that group as time goes by... what is far more difficult... Have ONE single AI group trying to do TWO different missions with TWO diffrerent sets of units. Independant of each other. It can be done at times...but it is tricky ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 Having the good fortune to have TWO AI groups to handle this situation would be better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 More is definitely better, I quite agree.....I've been trying to write CM:A stuff again and it's really hard! 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.