ronnierommel Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 I have been pondering how to make single player missions better as well as overall playablilty. I have come up with some suggestions and would like to see what you guys thing. First would be the ability to assign aggression levels to units. This would be done by default in the scenaio editor, but could be carried out to the setup phase of your side. It would be a numberical value between 0 and 9. 0 would be a hold at all cost orders (don't budge or we shoot you) and 9 would be an assault at all cost. Of course they would still act accordingly to incoming fire and the like, but they would a have a predisposition when left alone. I think this would help scenario designers help your units act in a cohesive manner specific attack or defest situation. Second, would be to number the victory flags and allow your units to be assigned to one. Thus, if there were four flags on the map you could assign each unit a victory flag to either defend or attack. Coupled with the aggression number, you could assign a unit an all out assault on a major victory flag, defend one to the last man, or somewhere in between. Thus units (especially on the AI side) could have a more cohesive plan in place for each mission before it starts. One last idea would to be able to make units victory marks. That would be that tank, a unit leader, even a truck could be a victory flag. Either the destruction or capture of that unit would yeild the victory points. Any thoughts on the subject would be greatly appreciated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Actually those sound like some good ideas and who knows maybe someone is listing. As far as the flags and certain troops being assigned to attack them I think that really would be a good idea. Like it is now the AI seems to just attack one flag which doens't seem too realistic when the goal should be all of them or at least most of them. Anyway, good ideas I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron66 Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 I find it hard to criticize CM because I simply respect it and its designers too much, but the scenario designer is a little weak in exactly this way. While I appreciate its simplicity (compared to others which require a degree to use) I think it definitely needs a few more tools and options. I mean, the aim of something like this is really to let it go and see what people make of it. Correct? Well, some advanced options would probably lead to some exciting stuff. Anyone ever played Ghost Recon? Wether ot not you like the game, you have to appreciate what the modding community was able to do with it when given the freedom and flexibilty to do so. In CM, I am constantly frustrated by one thing. You make a map, you place the units and you hope the AI does what you want it to do. If you playtest it enough and tweak the terrain enough you can usually persuade units to follow certain "guidelines", albeit simple ones. Basically, you do what you can and then leave it to the AI. The guys who do this well do it very well, but even they must often feel frustrated by the inability to easily put together fluid storylines. In general, it's a tool that is good for certain kinds of battles, but is a bit weak in scripting. I think the suggestions above are excellent, and relatively easy, ways for a designer to have a bit more control over the AI. Good on ya, ronnierommel. If no one is listening, they should be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 real quickly... a couple of major points i've come across: artillery spotters (FOs): 1) if you want a turn 1 pre-planned barrage called in by an AI spotter, make sure that the spotter will somehow be within LOS of the human player's units. this can even mean setting up the FO within the human player's setup zones. 2) if you want an FO to call in fire on a later turn, make it a reinforcement set for 100% chance of arrival on turn 2... this will prevent the FO from calling in turn 1 fire. keeping AI units in place: 1) make the scenario an exit scenario for the human player (attacker) with no flags flags: 1) the thing with flags appears to be that, once the human player takes just one, the ai sends everything it has at that same flag in a haphazard counterattack. in designing a scenario you can use this 'feature' to hit the human player with counterattacks. simply put an innocent-looking flag out there and set up ai-controlled units around it such that, when the human player takes it according to plan (yeah right), the ai counterattack commences 2) if you want the ai to attack the human player from the get-go, put the human in control of a flag at the start... just a few thoughts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by manchildstein II: flags: 1) the thing with flags appears to be that, once the human player takes just one, the ai sends everything it has at that same flag in a haphazard counterattack. in designing a scenario you can use this 'feature' to hit the human player with counterattacks. simply put an innocent-looking flag out there and set up ai-controlled units around it such that, when the human player takes it according to plan (yeah right), the ai counterattack commences 2) if you want the ai to attack the human player from the get-go, put the human in control of a flag at the start... just a few thoughts... The problem is... once you know AI behaviour, you assault just one flag, take it, slaughter the counter and continue the rest of the game at 5:1 odds. Only restriction is time&ammo. This is about the only reason I think a time limit vs the AI does make sense -at least if one flag is close to the attacker. AI attacking flags is very dumb. I set up a ME. Lined up 10 big flags in the middle, parallel to the fronts. I spread 10 small flags. 5 on each side of the big ones. When the battle ended, the AI forces were in the traditional setup. 2 pincers. First attacking the flag closest to the AI. 2nd pincer moving in that general direction. Flag taken. 2nd closest flag is attacked. I was there, stopped the AI and rolled him back. I held 3 big and 3 small flags, little casualties, AI held less flags - some only with recce elments. Most flags were totally abandoned. The AI never considered the time limit - he would have barely reached the 2nd flag he was after ( a small one...). From battling the AI and experimenting with pre-made qb maps (no full scale scenario desing), I'd suggest trying the following (as they don't allow for the standard anti-AI tactics) If designing scenarios for AI attacks, keep the flags together or use dynamic flags. On the AI defense if you want to make the best out of the AI counterattack, - keep all flags together so the human can't grab an outlier, dig in for a few turns and wait for the counter (my favourite anti AI tactic). - keep all flags to the rear so the human can't take a forward one to trigger the AI counter - use a deep map with flags along the axis of attack instead of a wide one. Some static units securing the flanks so the human pl can't outflank at the board edge. - use flags spread in two or three separated clusters on a very wide map. - use dynamic flags - or a time limit forcing the human player to spread his forces. But make sure he has the time to achieve his goals using realisitc tactics. E.g. with two clusters of flags, he has enough time to attack across 1000m to both flags. But he has not enough time to grab flag one with all of his forces and then move 2000m laterally to take the 2nd. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnierommel Posted September 5, 2003 Author Share Posted September 5, 2003 Thanks for all the help with building scenarios with the default editor and "tricking it" into your plans. But I was asking for these to be implemented in some future release. This would give us designers a some great tools to give the AI some sort of cohesion, attack or defend structure, and allow us to make it behave like we want. Not to have to trick it. I was just wondering what you guys thought about the ideas. Thanks for the posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grond Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Good ideas but I would call those scenario editor changes and not AI changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Jerkov Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Close your eyes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Hi Ronnie Rommel , i like your ideas. Additionally, there should be a possibility, to give AT-guns a certain trigger level. Either determining the hit-percentage, or the points/class (heavy, medium, light) the targeted unit should have at the minimum, before it unhides and shoots. [ September 05, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ] 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.