Can't get objectives to work right

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi,

I am hoping BFC could post a reply to this query.

I am creating a scenario in which Blue has to form a perimeter to protect something and Red has to prevent this. To do this I am using "Occupy" terrain objectives. Initially I had seven such objectives for Blue but I found Blue always secured the objectives without even moving. I therefore created identical objectives for Red thinking this might help. Guess what, Red secured its objectives too without moving! This surely can't be right?

Here are screenshots of the Debriefing screen for Blue (played against AI). N.B. I took off Objective #1 for Blue as I don't want people to see it in case I release the scenario. This is the only reason why there is a gap there. The objective positions on the map and settings are identical for both sides.

I think BFC need to explain how occupy Objectives work in more detail. Do you actually have to be on the tile or just near it? If just near it, how near? At the moment it looks like this isn't working.

[Dirtweasle]

Just a suggestion, and I've only barely scratched the surface on the editor, but maybe you have to also have a "touch" objective to get the AI to move?

[Cpl Steiner]

Dirtweasle,

Thanks for your response but the problem I'm having is that objectives are achieved even when neither side moves from their starting positions. Indeed, each side achieves its objectives even when they are geographically identical and neither side occupies them.

The map I'm working on is very small and the perimeter to be established is only about 15 map grid squares in diameter. I am wondering if this is just too small for "Occupy" objectives.

[Mishga]

Occupy is broken. Use Touch instead. Been that way since day one.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Occupy is broken. Use Touch instead. Been that way since day one.

No kidding?

[Cpl Steiner]

Great! How are we supposed to design meaningful scenarios when basic things like occupying an objective are bugged? Touch won't work for this scenario because it's supposed to be a perimeter. What use is a perimeter if a single team can just do a lap around it and call it secure!

[Mishga]

Oh and Max assault and assault are still broken too! Use Advance instead.

[MarkEzra]

Please forgive me for what I am sure are obvious questions but you did not mention them in your text:

1. When you set the objective did you also assign it some points?

2. Did you use AI editor to set at least one way point (painted in yellow) to get to the objective?

3. You mention the map is small. My understanding of objectives is that you don't need to be sitting on it to "Occupy" it. Are RED and Blue simiarly close to them?

QBG uses Objectives only for all their maps. All maps used as QB's change to Objectives...no matter what the designers original intent. I realize yours is a scenario I'm just puzzled at Objectives being "broken". The scenarios I've done and tested seem to have The AI taking hold of an objective just fine. Where the AI can run into problems is when there are many objective and few troop to hold them. It appears to me, at least, that the AI will then judge each objectives value.

But all that doesn't really answer your question, does it. Your problem certainly raises a concern for me.

I, like you, hope that BFC will clear up the confusion.

[aka_tom_w]

Occupy is broken. Use Touch instead. Been that way since day one.

and

Oh and Max assault and assault are still broken too! Use Advance instead.

um...

I think there are at least a few folks scratching their heads at BFC and in the beta test community over these "suggestions" :confused:

Now granted the AI and the scenario editor can be a bit of a black art or nebulous enigma at times, as we have all sometimes wondered what is the difference between a bug, user error and just plain old "stuff" that's on the list and has not been fixed yet, or was that REALLY the way Steve and Charles INTENDED the game to behave??

BUT such bold statements like: "Occupy is broken. Use Touch instead. Been that way since day one. and Oh and Max assault and assault are still broken too! Use Advance instead." Sound somewhat unsubtantiated and would be more helphful if there were some testing methodology or scenario examples to verify these claims with.

Mishga sounds extremely sure of these claims but I would like to suggest (as politely as publically possible) that such claims might be considered news to BFC and the beta tester team.

[aka_tom_w]

The original issue Cpl Steiner posted may have something to do with how victory points are determined and assigned and may not have so much to do with the scenario editor, but that is just one possible explanation of the result.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

aka_tom_w,

I would be happy to send you my scenario file if you want to test this as long as I still hold the "copyright" as it were if I decide to publish on CMMODS or something. Would you like the file?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

aka_tom_w,

I would be happy to send you my scenario file if you want to test this as long as I still hold the "copyright" as it were if I decide to publish on CMMODS or something. Would you like the file? </font>

sure I would like to take a look at it

copyright integrity assured

thanks

e-mail is in my profile

[Mishga]

Tom,

I have only made around 50 scenarios for the QBG so I am pretty sure what works and does not work.

Trust me, I ran a test yesterday, Max Assault and Assault, I doubt, are working as intended. i.e Troops moving nowhere.

Occupy objective will give you the objective in any scenario of any size. Again I tested this on a 4km x 4km map by starting and then ceasefire. All occupy objectives were stated as taken. Despite being almost 4km away from them.

If this is how BFC wish things to work, fine by me. If not...these really need looked at.

Just look at the scenario that came with the map. The one where troops have to move to the little farm buildings between high cliffs. I think the one Michael Dorosh made.

The stock map has Max Assault or Assault orders. Scenario just don't work because of it. No offence to Doshy, he probly never knew that the orders did not work.

Check it out and see for yourself.

[aka_tom_w]

Hey

they are really just trying to help

if you have a scenario that you would like them to look and please send to to me, (e-mail is in the profile)

once again I think my words were:

" a few folks scratching their heads at BFC and in the beta test community"

Everyone is open minded and the patches just "keep on coming" from BFC because they have a sincere desire to make it right.

(I am just their humble servant (volunteer/guinea pig) trying to help out.

really

[ October 08, 2007, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

you know when you call on the phone for tech support or customer support and you get a pre-recorded message that says "This call will me monitored for Quality Assurance"....

well, that is sort of doubly true for posts on this forum, ALL beta testers signed a strict legal agreement (NDA) about NON disclosure, so EVERYTHING posted out here in public is open to BFC scrutiny, so some of the beta testers (who are smart and know better) don't post in this forum at all. Others who just can't seem to keep quiet after they read something that is in their opinion and experience not the same "interpretation" of the in game behaviour they have seen while beta testing post some things sometimes.

My point is ALL posts by beta testers are subject to "overview" so hopefully the beta testers can post things that are informative and will continue to work (largely behind the scenes, preferably) on testing things are are suggested here to be not working, (like the issue with objectives in the editor)

[ October 08, 2007, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Tom,

I have only made around 50 scenarios for the QBG so I am pretty sure what works and does not work.

Trust me, I ran a test yesterday, Max Assault and Assault, I doubt, are working as intended. i.e Troops moving nowhere.

Occupy objective will give you the objective in any scenario of any size. Again I tested this on a 4km x 4km map by starting and then ceasefire. All occupy objectives were stated as taken. Despite being almost 4km away from them.

If this is how BFC wish things to work, fine by me. If not...these really need looked at.

Just look at the scenario that came with the map. The one where troops have to move to the little farm buildings between high cliffs. I think the one Michael Dorosh made.

The stock map has Max Assault or Assault orders. Scenario just don't work because of it. No offence to Doshy, he probly never knew that the orders did not work.

Check it out and see for yourself.

Hi Mishga: I just think that when you "ceasefire" you lose. I'm not certain it's the best way or even a way of testing how "Objectives" work. Just my 2 cents.

[ October 08, 2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[Mishga]

ok, ceasefire and both sides get the objectives.

from 4km away.... meh...what do I care. Play a few QB's and you soon see all objectives are turned into Occupy and see how odd things get. O

I believe the parameter for Occupy is to take and hold. i.e Keeping troops on the objective. This objective don't quite work like that.

Tom,

Check the stock maps that came with the game. You will soon see broken Max Assault and Assault.

I ain't gonna argue with you, just go make a Meeting engagement scenario with lots of Max Assault and Assault orders in the AI plan and see how far your troops get. Make sure you have the Objectives too so that they can claim it while never getting anywhere near it.

Have fun.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

aka_tom_w,

I would be happy to send you my scenario file if you want to test this as long as I still hold the "copyright" as it were if I decide to publish on CMMODS or something. Would you like the file? </font>

sure I would like to take a look at it

copyright integrity assured

thanks

e-mail is in my profile

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

file received from cpl steiner

[ October 08, 2007, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[birdstrike]

The funny thing is, Assault and Max Assault works for infantry. When given this order, they seem to perform the leap-frog movement, i.e. the Assault movement. Maybe units without this movement command (vehicles) cannot move because they don't have an appropriate movement option.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

The funny thing is, Assault and Max Assault works for infantry. When given this order, they seem to perform the leap-frog movement, i.e. the Assault movement. Maybe units without this movement command (vehicles) cannot move because they don't have an appropriate movement option.

for sure that could be an issue...

[Mishga]

Tom

Another file sent which shows exactly the above but it's not just infantry, it's only infantry with the "assault" movement command that can comply.

Sorry for being a bitch about it. I apologise for being overly defensive.

[MarkEzra]

Something to keep in mind about the AI orders: The scenario editor allow for 5 different complete plans per side, per scen. Of those 5 plans you have at least 16 move orders. And of those you can have up to 8 different unit group with separate orders. For example: three different type units A recon Humvee, Assault squad, and a Bradley. Using the editor tools and the Unit editor label them 1, 2 & 3.

Group one (the Humvee) orders will be "Cautious"

Group two The assault squad will be "assault". And Group three, Bradley, we'll set for Advance.

So know you will see three different actions from three different units within the same plan. Now order number 2:

group 1 Humvee set to "dash", group2 Assault set to "hide" and the Bradley set to "Hunt" and that's the 2nd order of plan 1.

If this sounds complicated, it is. It also allows tremendous design flexibility. A scenario designer can rather minutely direct the AI attack/defend stances. With the game so new most of us who like scenario design have barely scratched the surface of what the editor can do.

In our QBG work we actually AVOID using the true depth of the editor plans. That's because we have NO Idea what forces the player will be choosing. Scenario designers...they have all the fun

[ October 08, 2007, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Just look at the scenario that came with the map. The one where troops have to move to the little farm buildings between high cliffs. I think the one Michael Dorosh made.

The stock map has Max Assault or Assault orders. Scenario just don't work because of it. No offence to Doshy, he probly never knew that the orders did not work.

Check it out and see for yourself.

I take my cues from James Dunnigan. I build 'em, but I don't play 'em.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it! :mad:

Scores in wargames are like marks in school - you know if you've won or not without looking at the numbers.

That's my second story, and I'm sticking to that one too! :mad: :mad:

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by Mishga:

it's not just infantry, it's only infantry with the "assault" movement command that can comply.

Right. What would be useful were something like the old CMx1 "HUNT" command, where units would stop upon seeing an enemy and continue their movement when the coast is clear again, this could do the trick.