Scripting, scenario editing and editing saved games

[Guest Simon]

I'm reposting this from the Tips forum, only a couple people in there, and this is of general interest (at least IMHO).

Note the below suggestion could also be acomplished by allowing the scenario editor to load saved games (single player or hotseat only of course) and re-save them as new scenario's while keeping any already given orders. Although this would be more kludgy than just allowing a scenario maker to access the full orders menu during the creation process. It would have the advantage of allowing us to start a scenario with stuff already destroyed to simulate an ongoing battle.

-----------------------------------------

It seems to me that the possibility for rudimentary scripting already exists within the game... In fact I'm surprised BTS didn't include it. Just allow the scenario designer to access ALL of the orders menu when making a scenario. Then change "padlock" to also force any "order" to be completed in addition to forcing the unit to stay put (if it doesn't have orders) during setup.

So you could load a squad on a truck and manage to actually get it to drive the squad down a road even if the AI is controlling that side. As it stands the AI will just dismount the squads and leave the trucks sitting.

Related to my last post [on the tips forum see: "editing saved games"]. Is there any chance of adding the ability to change more things about units? Such as whether they are in a destroyed or abandoned state? In addition to supression and fatique perhaps edit a unit to have X amount of casualties?

----------------------------------------

Personally I'm finding it hard to do certain historical and fictional scenario's because events that did happen wont.

Even trying to trick or force the AI into a type of behavour such as a desperate rush; an unsuspecting ambush; a supply or patrol convoy; recon movement; pre planed or in progress bombardment's etc. by manipulating the amount of time the AI has, or it's objectives, just doesn't want to work. It's a shame really because there's a lot potentail for creative scenario design there.

------------------

Simon http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[This message has been edited by Simon (edited 07-24-2000).]

[Guest Simon]

Kinda trying to get BTS's thoughts on this (got about 4 scenario's that would somewhat depend on a bit more control over events)

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[Wild Bill Wilder]

There are a lot of features, editorially speaking in scenario design, that I have been clamoring for.

When work begins on the next volume in this magnificent series, I will be a strong lobbyist for some areas where I think new and better tools could be supplied to the scenario designer.

A few examples. The ability to set objectives for a particular unit, so that it goes to that objective instead of the flag.

The ability to modify the # of units in a squad. Few units remained in combat for very long at full strength.

Being able to have single squads with the need or a platoon HQ always attached.

A better co-relation between the map editor and the preview screen so that you don't have to jump back and forth to make sure all units are in the zone, or that the units are at the desired distance from a specific point.

These are a few of a number of improvements I hope we can get.

Don't get me wrong. I am not crying foul, or that the game is not already great.

I just see the need for a few changes in the editor to make it better.

Having more latitude in editing will eventually mean a greater variety and enhanced quality to the created scenarios in the game.

------------------

Wild Bill

Lead Tester/Designer

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Jeff Pattison]

A suggestion for scripting the AI was made by me in the thread "Getting the most out of the AI" at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004636.html on page 2 which was probably not the first time it had been brought up. You can see Steve's response later on in the thread.

But, the basic gist of the answer was that CM is not setup for scripting and that it was too complex to do for only a marginal improvement in value to the user.

Now that I've seen the released version of CM, I'm not really satisfied with that answer and I hope they will reconsider ways of allowing the scenario designers to tailor the AI's behavior including scripting.

I, like you, am also having problems with getting the strategic AI to provide the appropriate behavior in some situations. It seems to me that there is some bizarre AI behavior in advance operations when the AI is on the advance. IMHO, the AI spends too much time milling about in the open before an attack squandering both resources and time. As a result, I've been able to inflict devastating losses on the AI with artillery fire. It's like it doesn't really know that exiting off the current map is the goal. I traced some of that behavior back to the including units in the slow movement or lower class. Eliminating those units did improve that behavior, but it still continues to some degree.

And although the AI is good, I think we should continue to push for a better AI. It's only through the continued demand from the user community that they may change their minds about the value of including some of these changes in future releases.

P.S. Steve, the AI does barf on occasion.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 07-24-2000).]

[stodge]

I like the idea of scripting. Endless tweaking and improvements, although I'm sure this would mean a serious re-write of the Game AI Engine.

[Guest Simon]

Again to get basic scripting they only need allow the designer to issue orders at the start of the scenario, either by allowing access to the normal oders menu in "preview" or by allowing a saved game in progress to be turned into the scenario with any orders intact. Then use "padlock" to also mean "carry out these orders until finished" or just make orders given at scenario creation/saving be imperitive.

No need for a scripting language at least to get things off on the right foot. Now for more advanced tricks, they could impliment something similar to SP:WAW's "objectives" i.e. a little flag that only the specific unit/platoon etc. is impelled to achive.

With either of these you could get designed flanking, get Grabner to lead across the Arnhem bridge, make reinforcments do a specific thing, create armor collumns... all of these are easy to do by only allowing normal orders, made by the scenario designer

As a side benifit being able to play a turn or two of your scenario and then edit it again would make already existant blown up tanks and destroyed pillboxes possible. As well as "prebombardment" and shell holes for that nice "it's been a long day already guys lets get this over with" effect.

I also agree with WB's suggestions as I've found myself wishing for them at various times myself.

Not a complaint per say, just a suggestion. I wouldn't want or use a complex code based scripting language. But allowing the orders that we already know, and use, and allow them to override the strategic AI until out of orders or the tac-AI interupts; would provide a very nice tool for scenario design (especially historical scenarios).

------------------

Simon http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[This message has been edited by Simon (edited 07-24-2000).]

[Jeff Pattison]

I think we are on the same page here. By scripting language, I meant something like what you are talking about here with a few switches for AI style, aggressiveness, and flexibility. Something like a MAPI code implimentation is really less than useful as I have found from writing scripts for StarFleet Command. Of course, when I wrote that post I hadn't yet seen the scenario editor, so I couldn't really get specific.

From what I took from Steve's response, I thought that it was pretty clear all scripting even the basic stuff your talking about here would be a 4 to 6 month programming job minimum. But, I could be misinterpreting what I read. Maybe, Steve will show up and clear up the confusion over what Big Time has in store for the AI in the future.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 07-25-2000).]

[Guest Simon]

Well FWIW I can't imagine it would take 6 months of coding to allow the editor to open saved games, or to allow the unit orders right click menu within the preview screen, and then get the scenario editor to save the scenario with those orders intact.

Unfortunately it looks like 1.03 has only made the editor a bit LESS flexible, as you can no longer have an odd number of Teams, thus making battles in progress, atirition, or more realistic and historical unit sizes less possible.

A minor gripe no doubt.

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/

[PvK]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon:

Unfortunately it looks like 1.03 has only made the editor a bit LESS flexible, as you can no longer have an odd number of Teams, thus making battles in progress, atirition, or more realistic and historical unit sizes less possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by "odd numbers"?

PvK

[Guest Simon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PvK:

What do you mean by "odd numbers"?

PvK

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well unless I misread the list of changes in 1.03 deleteing part of a "team" (i.e. half a split squad) deletes the other half as well. So you can't have a formation like: Plt. HQ

Team A Team B Team C, which is one and a half squads. Deleting Team D also deletes team C. Again I haven't tested this and it's a minor point regardless. But it is a bit less flexibility.

------------------

Simon

http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/