Jump to content

Major Bone... AI Planning Tools


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Strangely enough, the more I see from CM:SF, the less interest do I have in WW2 themes. I mean, with regard to WW2, we have seen it all, haven't we?!

Best regards,

Thomm

Which would pretty much kick ToW into touch?

But it won't, of course, because you massively under-estimate the interest in WW2 and the potential in games that portray aspects of it.

In terms of size, scale and diversity in locations, terrain and armaments, there is nothing to touch WW2. Falklands, Gulf War, Iraq, theoretical Syria, are merely skirmishes in comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sequoia:

I assume additinal plans can always be devised and added to a scenario by some one other than the original designer? If so It'll mean a whole new category of files at the Scenario Depot. :cool:

Good point

if the plan or design or intention of BFC is the same as CMx1 there should be a form or "locked" scenario like the "Tournement Save" feature from CMx1.

That would mean (if they use that feature again) that scenarios could be locked or open. AND therefore one would hope other folks could add other optional or alternative plans to anyone else's scenario, especially after playing it, and seeing what could be done different or better.

smile.gif

Good thinking Sequoia!

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the AI plans are part of the scenario itself. It means you have to enter the scenario editor and change someone else's work. I would NOT do so without that author's permission if you want to release it. I know personally I would like to be asked if distributed, but if changed just for your own use, enjoy...

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new AI planning tools sound like an excellent idea and will add a whole new level of enjoyment to the game. I can imagine people having competitions to see who can design the best AI plans for the same basic scenario and posting the winning design on the Web for instance.

One question though: Will it be possible to have waypoints in the plan that force the AI to stop moving some units until some condition is met? The simplest would be to wait for another unit to complete its orders before moving on. Such a system was implemented for the game "Operation Flashpoint" many moons ago, not to mention the even older "Rainbow Six".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have fond memories of trying to get the AI to use "bounding overwatch" or "leapfrog" tactics in "Operation Flashpoint". In that game you could create a series of waypoints for a pair of units and then drag lines from each waypoint of one unit to each waypoint of the other. The lines you dragged between waypoints were called "triggers" and caused a unit to pause whilst the other moved to its next waypoint IIRC.

I can't remember how successful this was but at least the facility was there if you could figure out how to use it.

Hopefully in CM:SF these low level tactical AI decisions won't need to be scripted in such detail. I'm hoping some level of build-in AI will handle bounding overwatch but who knows?

Anyway, glad to see that the AI is getting a make-over in CM:SF!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Waypoints are possible, but only at the expense of the 16 slots for each Group's part of the Plan. In other words, you can have a total of 16 things for a Group to do, which can me 16 Waypoints. You don't want to micromanage them much beyond that anyway or the Plan will be too brittle.

Steve

Steve, any reason for limit of 16? Technical? Or something else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Quoth Battlefront.com:

There are ways to coordinate Groups based on Time or Condition. The latter is not in yet but will be soon, I hope!

Does this mean that a scenario designer can instruct a group of units to hold a position, but to withdraw if they take a certain level of casualties? So that engagements need not become mondo-battles-to-the-death?

Is there any way to make the AI break off an attack if losses become too high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to throw in something that consumes more computer cycles, but this is something I have been rolling over in my mind. Some AI cue for gunfire. I know this is pretty much a Iraqi model, but AFTER the initial stages of the Syrian invasion (or arguably throughout, depending on pre-invasion Syrian propaganda) how about some sort of 'conflict meter' within a given scenario. Something to give the part time insurgents/Syrian fighters/whatever some time to arrive at the firefight. I am talking about the guys that grab their AKs when the sounds of a firefight starts, and work their way to the scene to fire off a few rounds and then return to their homes to have chai. Give scenerio designers some sort of in-game 'meter' to cause AI decision making to create small, squad sized irregular units to appear and work their way towards the scene of the fight. This would be handled by the scenario designer as units that appeared ON-MAP (Is this on-map option for reinforcements currently in the game?). These units appear on-map based on some sort of 'cue' from a sort of level-of-violence/intensity-of-firefight meter. Or at a given time AFTER the meter reaches a given metric. Say, if a squad taking a single sniper round is a 1 and a full-on company sized battle utilizing indirect fire, tanks and AFVs, and air support is 100, is sort of the low and high sides of the meter. A scenario designer could say 5 minutes after the battle reaches a 30 (Say, a Stryker platoon encounters an IED and a Syrian platoon blocking position with ATGMs that attack the Strykers), three 3-5 man irregular squads begin moving towards the site of the fighting from throughout the city/town/village. Or the scenario could range it from a 25 to a 50 for each squad/unit/fireteam.

civdiv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like an excellent system, can't wait to try it out.

A question about the StratAI (for QBs and no plans). Will it work by creating a "plan" and then letting the TacAI follow it? or will it work the same way as in CMx1?

I can see enormous advantages of the former, but of course the big advantage of the latter is that it would be less work given your current code base.

On the organisation of groups: Will a group need to have a designated HQ unit? Will there be any other C&C implications for these groups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rune:

No, you can only belong to one group. However, your reinforcements can be split into multiple groups. Semantics, but I don't want anyone thinking a squad of infantry can belong to two groups. So then yes, the reinforcement would have 2 groups each with its own set or orders.

Rune

What if a group of units becomes too small to be an effective fighting force? Is there any code that will say for example, "If Group B becomes n% of original strength, join Group A"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by rune:

Nope, not very realistic, and think about it, Group A might be attacking from the east, and group b from the West. if it changed groups, how would it get there?

Rune

Well that was just an example, so I will try to frame my question better. I am wondering if there is any way for a group to evaluate if it is even possible to complete an objective. It might be an AI limitation (the leaking sieve), but a human player could send a group to do an objective, and realize that the objective is completely untenable. At that point the human play can adjust. Is there any such AI adjustment?

[ April 17, 2007, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Nope. What would be an untenable objective? Just trying to define it alone would be impossible for the AI, much less determining if it could or couldn't.

An objective could be touch a location. {yep, I have had fun setting up scenarios with that). There is a player platoon now in its spot, how do we determine if the AI goes for it or not? If it doesn't what happens if the platoon moves away? The decision tree alone would require months of coding. Basically what you are asking for is very involved, and not very likely.

Security guard, you are thinking in CMX1 terms, something everyone is going to have to forget. I can set the troops to "hide" untill a line is crossed or timed that at the 3:30 mark, they pop up and ambush at 75 meters. The biggest adjustment for the scenario designers I invited was to forget what they learned with CMX1.

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Looks like Steve left out one little tidbit about the Plans. He mentioned how the AI will select at semi-random one of the Plans. That's true, but what he forgot to mention is that the scenario designer can create up to five seperate plans for each side, per scenario.

Madmatt

What does 'semi-random' mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...