M.K.P Huusko Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Herein are some ideas of mine for the upcoming new CM engine, presented to the merciless scrutiny of this board of fellow gamers. It is my humble opinion, misguided as it may be, that should these suggestions be implemented, they would greatly enhance gameplay, and bring great joy and happiness to the CM gaming community. IDEA 1: USER DEFINED AI BEHAVIOUR Each unit has certain generic EVENT properties, which trigger user selectable behaviour. In a way, it is like "a conditional command system", governing what to do if something happens. For example: AFV type unit has EVENT property "SHOT AT". Under this property there is a dropdown list, with following actions. - Shoot back and retreat out of the line of sight. - Retreat out of sight. - Stay and fight. - Reverse to last waypoint. - Fast to next waypoint. Thus, with the selected action "Reverse to last waypoint", the AFV would stop and reverse to the last waypoint when shot at, instead of blissfully continuing forward. The "Shoot and retreat out of sight" - option would be really handy for setting ambushes, and then getting away before the enemy turns the ambushers into a mincemeat. To reduce micromanagement, there should be global preferences, which could be overridden by company level, platoon level, all the way to a single unit. With this model, the player could first set global preference for ALL AFVs SHOT AT = "Reverse to last waypoint". Then he could set overriding preference to a platoon of tiger tanks SHOT AT = "Stay and fight". The behaviour system represents conditional orders given to a unit and also its common sense. In my opinion it would increase realism and playability. Consider a real life commander telling to an AFV: "Ok, scout ahead, but if you encounter the enemy, retreat and come back." You can't do that with the current system, but with the EVENT trigger / action system it would be possible. *** IDEA 2: UNIT MEMORY Unit memory would be a great improvement over the current system. As we all well know, the units in CM don't remember what they've been doing, or what they've seen. Well, the game is absolutely great in spite of that flaw, but imagine how much better it would be with unit memory? Units should remember at least CURRENT COMMAND SEQUENCE and ENEMIES SEEN. CURRENT COMMAND SEQUENCE contains all the commands given to a unit, until it has executed the last one. After the final command has been done, the command sequence memory is emptied. With the command sequence memory it is possible for a unit to reverse to the last waypoint for an example. ENEMIES SEEN contains all the enemies a unit has seen and their last know location. This would allow commands such as MOVE TO LINE OF SIGHT. An example of the ENEMIES SEEN memory in action: Player's AFV has spotted an enemy AFV and retreats out of its line of sight. Player selects MOVE TO LINE OF SIGHT command, and selects the previously seen enemy AFV from the unit memory as target. If the enemy AFV has not moved from the position where it was when the player's AFV last saw it, the player's AFV quickly acquires it as a target. However, if the enemy AFV has moved, the player's AFV may waste time searching for the intended target. *** IDEA 3: NEW COMMANDS MOVE TO LINE OF SIGHT: Units moves until it has a line of sight to a unit or location. ATTACK AND RETREAT: Similar to shoot and scoot, except the unit moves forward until it has a line of sight to a selected target, shoots, and then backs out of the line of sight. *** IDEA 4: PRIORITY ORDER It would be nice to be able to set a command as a priority order, which would enforce a unit to carry out the command with the utmost effort. Only very serious threats (also depending on the unit experience level) would make the unit to deviate from the priority order. Morale: I'm the top brass commander, and if I order for example a tank to fire something -- even if it would be a total waste of ammo -- it well should do so, not "conserve ammo", or "decide it was useless to shoot at". You're not supposed to think in the army soldier! You're supposed to obey! *** That's all folks. Now, some opinions please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Good suggestions. The more help a scenario designer can give the AI for SP games, the better. I would add a general"path of attack/line of defense" order for the AI to follow. The best way to describe this notion are the arrows you see on operational maps designating points of attack. The same can be done for defense-although a "front" line that was to be defended would be better. This would better simulate a general plan that the AI has tpo follow, and would help greatly with those interested in historical scenario design. For replayability, there could be tertiary attack areas that would work as a ranomized "plan A, B, C" etc. The game does this now to a more abstracted sense, but it would be nice to have a greater hand in this area of scenario design, and to fine tweak it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.K.P Huusko Posted March 3, 2003 Author Share Posted March 3, 2003 Benpark, I didn't mean these new features to be scenario designer aid, but to be used by the player(s) during the actual game. Sorry if I presented my ideas in an unclear manner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by M.K.P Huusko: Benpark, I didn't mean these new features to be scenario designer aid, but to be used by the player(s) during the actual game. Sorry if I presented my ideas in an unclear manner. I think you are refering to SOPs Standard Operating Procedures so you can sort of issue "guide lines" to the Tac AI It is a good idea and it has come up before, Lets wait and see what they do for us in the next BIG THING CMII -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 No worries-just posted out of my overeager desires for redone AI for the next engine, and I tagged on to your post. My apologies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 - Shoot back and retreat out of the line of sight. - Retreat out of sight. - Stay and fight. - Reverse to last waypoint. - Fast to next waypoint. Ah, the end of the Chicken **** Tanker. Nothing burns me more than watching a perfect ambush get ruined a tank that runs (usually out into the open!) instead of firing. Another item for the list would be regulating the use of "special" ammo like Tungston or Hollow Charge. I've watched many of any atry peice burn through all its HE ammo and never touch the HC even though the HE didn't do squat to the target tank. If I'm hunting KTs with T-34/85's, I'd love to be able to tell them to use Tungston rounds first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.K.P Huusko Posted March 3, 2003 Author Share Posted March 3, 2003 Just thought of... One problem with my proposed event trigger & command sequence memory system occurs when the unit is forced to go back in the command sequence chain. Example: AFV is shot at. It reverses back to the previous waypoint in the command sequence memory. What happens next? How to prevent the AFV from continuing the order chain, driving forward again, being shot at, reverse back, drive forward... and so on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Even a more generic aid to both player and designer would be useful, ie Foolhardy, aggressive, normal, defensive, run for the hills, type of catagory would be useful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Even a more generic aid to both player and designer would be useful, ie Foolhardy, aggressive, normal, defensive, run for the hills, type of catagory would be useful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M.K.P Huusko: Benpark, I didn't mean these new features to be scenario designer aid, but to be used by the player(s) during the actual game. Sorry if I presented my ideas in an unclear manner. I think you are refering to SOPs Standard Operating Procedures so you can sort of issue "guide lines" to the Tac AI It is a good idea and it has come up before, Lets wait and see what they do for us in the next BIG THING CMII -tom w </font> 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.