Revamping the stock campaigns.. project?

[ChrisND]

Anyone out there interested in re-doing the stock campaigns? I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting sick of wave upon wave of uber tanks always horribly out-numbering me, reinforcements warping into the middle of the battle, and hunting down runaway crews to "secure" an area for vict obj.

Anyhoo, maybe we can use this thread as a launching point to identify specifically what needs to be fixed in what scenarios, and then fix them and post it on cmmods.

Most of the scenarios would literally take only 1 or 2 tweaks and they would be fine.

I think I will start by later tonight posting the full list of campaigns w/ scenarios, and underneath each scenarios adding applicable comments for tweaking. Keeping the list in one post, I can update other people's suggestions and if someone is/has edited it.

Call it a "community campaign set" if you will.

[ May 11, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Normal Dude ]

[K9crump]

Sounds like a good idea. I am with you on the unfair advantage the ai always has. It would be nice to see how they do with the playing field leveled...lol.

Mike

[ChrisND]

Russian Campaign:

All AT gun costs need to be reduced. As it is I don't see why 2 45mm guns should be worth one T-34 Mod 41. It should 3 or 4!

Barbarossa Begins:

T-34 needs to be removed entirely, I am pretty sure they did not even have AP ammo for T-34s in June. Accordingly, the amount of German tanks needs to be reduced, and less IVCs.

Surrounded:

T-34s should be reduced. At these ranges the german advance can be stopped cold by one T-34. The AI needs to mass its infantry attack with supporting tanks on the far right flank in the woods with the slope are cover. Accordingly the map edge needs to be extended slightly in that direction. The far left infantry attack is just suicide in that open ground.

Moscow is Behind Us:

Victory conditions need tweaking and reinforcement triggers need tweaking.

Heroic Deeds:

EDIT: I had thought Russian AT capability was too low, but I did not realize that practically every squad member had AT grenades. Those things rule! I am going to experiment with lowering the visibility and re-directing the troop advance, because ATM the Germans might as well not have infantry, they get wiped out before the first trench line.

Winter Offense:

Didn't find any real probs.

Strong at Heart:

This god awful POS made me almost uninstall ToW. If this is indicative of the rest of the Russian Campaign, I'm stopping right now. It's not even fun, it's punishment. What's the point of the RPG skills system if your beginning set of troops is doomed to die from artillery?

[ May 12, 2007, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Normal Dude ]

[Oudy]

Normal Dude

I don't believe unit costs can be changed in the Mission Editor. You might be able to alter it directly within the .xml files, but I'm not sure what the impact of doing that might be.

Oudy

[PFMM]

Just pissing on your parade.

You will most likely find that one or so tweaks will then require a few more tweaks somewhere else and so on. And one of those tweaks will eventually require you to reprogram the gaming routines of the scenario.

Programming good game routines is NOT easy, and it has to be done for every scenario on a case by case instance. The more various the scenario is, the more extensive the code will become.

It is alot of work.

The current ideology is to keep the computer opponent fighting you, which keeps you from noticing how moronic it is and keeps it interesting. If you intend to let the computer find you before it acts you will find it both even more moronic and dull.

[wokelly]

Regardless I have to agree about the ATG cost. Given that its a freaking gun with wheels and a gun shield and sights, it should not be as costly as a Tank. I am not talking about production cost or something like that, I mean literally there is no reason a gun that is so much more vulnerable should cost so much compared to a tank.

I mean the only reason I would not dump 76.2mm russian ATGs for to go for a T-34 would be because the ludicrous AP/HE loads for T-34s (20/80 AP/HE? WTF give the rediculous amount of tanks you face in the second and third waves, 20 AP?????) since ATGs generally have higher AP loads.

ATGs are just to vulnerable to have them cost so much. I mean a 76.2mm ATG cost anywhere from 66% to 75% of a T-34 1941 (cant remember 76.2mm price).

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by PFMM:

Just pissing on your parade.

You will most likely find that one or so tweaks will then require a few more tweaks somewhere else and so on. And one of those tweaks will eventually require you to reprogram the gaming routines of the scenario.

Programming good game routines is NOT easy, and it has to be done for every scenario on a case by case instance. The more various the scenario is, the more extensive the code will become.

It is alot of work.

The current ideology is to keep the computer opponent fighting you, which keeps you from noticing how moronic it is and keeps it interesting. If you intend to let the computer find you before it acts you will find it both even more moronic and dull.

This is isn't the first time I have done scenario design, I'm not just some schmoe talking out of my ass, and I'd appreciate it if you would'nt jump to that conclusion. If it wasn't challenging then I wouldn't be interested in the first place.

[Bad]

pff, campains are fine, i dont want them to be easie, THEY ARE FINE

[ChrisND]

Bad,

I'm glad you like them. I like them too, for the most part, but some of us think there are improvements and/or modifications that can be made, and with the editor we can make these.

[FinnN]

I think it's a good idea, but wouldn't it be better to wait for the first patch if it's going to jumble up LOS and LOF? That said I'm sure some practice using the mission editor etc wouldn't go amiss.

I'd certainly be willing to help if possible.

Have fun

Finn

[FinnN]

Originally posted by Bad:

pff, campains are fine, i dont want them to be easie, THEY ARE FINE

But not very historical - I'd rather them be both.

Have fun

Finn

[Destraex]

I would like to see just how good the AI is in a equal forces match.

Is the AI really on strings in this one? I.e. if you create a mission with no orders/waypoints for the AI will it still try to beat you

[PFMM]

In short no. It will both shoot at and make afetr targets if they are in sight. After that, it will go back to it's original position. That's all.

So if you replace a computer controlled heavy tank with a light tank in a scenario and change nothing else, it will use the light tank just as it would the light tank.

You must code the game play for the computer for each scenario you create or modify.

I know, because I'm currently doing just that.

[ChrisND]

Hey FinN, you are correct to "wait and see" with the first patch, I can't start immediately anyways what with school finals going on. I was just getting the idea out there.

[wokelly]

Originally posted by FinnN:

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

pff, campains are fine, i dont want them to be easie, THEY ARE FINE

But not very historical - I'd rather them be both.

Have fun

Finn </font>

[Destraex]

OK... so basically if you tell the AI to be on the attack or on the offensive buy giving it objectives like the player has. Capture the hill or defend the bridge does the AI make good decisions on where to deploy its forces?? Or do you have to go so far as waypointing them down to the last unit...... I guess if anybody has done any flashpoint mission making can you compare it to that ??? As I have done flashpoint missions and scripting.

Oh and how does this compare to CC and CM AI?? Was CM AI on rails per mission? I know CC AI yo could build any map you liked and the AI just seemed to take to it if the map maker programmed it correctly??

[Oudy]

Destraex

You have to program where to move and attack with all of the units. Once they engage the enemy then the computer figures out who to attack and will advance to the objective. But without any orders the enemy troops will sit at their starting locations.

You can combine units into larger groups so you don't actually have to tell each unit where to go, but you can if you like.

Sorry, I've never done any flashpoint, CC or CM missions, only ones for Il-2.

Oudy

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Destraex:

...I guess if anybody has done any flashpoint mission making can you compare it to that ??? As I have done flashpoint missions and scripting.

Oh and how does this compare to CC and CM AI?....

I'd say programing the missions in TOW as compared to OFP or ARMA is somehow similar. TOW is more flexible in some respects and superior in my opinion. In ARMA doing missions can be extremely frustrating since for instance you put a soldier in one waypoint but he would look the other way!

Since CM is a lot more abstract you cant really compare. Still in CM there is this strategic AI to take care of things for you. This is not necessarily a good thing though.

I think mission making in TOW puts all the responsablity and burden on the designer. At the same time if you want to invest the time, you can make same pretty neat stuff that will make the player feel that he is going against an intelligent opponent.

You don't really need much more than that to create good missions. Well, of course the static objects that will come with the patch.

One thing that I noticed is that infantry don't behave very intelligently when they get too close to each other. In all games that I did mission scripting for actually.

Tanks look a lot more realistic and intelligent in their behaviour than the soldiers do.

[ May 12, 2007, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[Destraex]

THanks Webwing and Oudy.

I have composed il2 Sturmovik missions aswell as ARMA/OPFP missions.

The main problems I have with them is the static nature of the missions making replay value limited. In OPFP you can script a mission to have many unknown or random events happen that make missions a little more replayable. Such as putting a unit into the mission which has an % chance of actually spawning when the mission is loaded etc

I would be looking for this in the TOW editor. I do not want to see the same counterattack happen evertime I hit the objective. I do not want to see the same units appear everytime I hit the objective. It would even be great to see the enemy retreat intelligently.

If this is not possible thats ok, but this will mean that the game does not compare even to Close Combats limited AI..... but in another way means that missions designers can have a lot more fun and that a lot more things are possible.

For instance close combat AI cannot be told what to do, it acts on its own according to the map you put it on. However after a while you can second guess what the AI will do in a given situation.... with OPFP and a more limited script it may be possible to insert 100 random missions into a 10 mission campaign so that you have no idea what will happen.

[FinnN]

Random events and random units both seem possible using triggers. I think, using a complicated set of triggers you could probably construct something to get a retreat happening, eg if such and such a rect is no longer under our control, move units from rect A to rect B - but I doubt it'd be a very intelligent one without a lot of them to cover all sorts of possible player action. Also I have to wonder what sort of impact lots of triggers have on performance?

Have fun

Finn

[PFMM]

Unless you have long lists of conditionals and subconditionals, and lots of those as well it shold not be a problem. What is more of a concern is if they all occur at the same time causing noticable lag.

What I see is people wishing for the situation where they place some tanks in a location and they then engage in a competative manner. Forget it, they know how to advance straight forward or retreat straight back and that's pretty much it.

If you want that flanking manuever you will have to code it in the script.

[Bad]

the enemy spawn is random in this game if you restart mission, have often seen it happen, got owned in a mission, restarted it and setup my forces to defend from where attack came 1st time, but woopsy, attack came from totaly different direction

[ May 13, 2007, 04:03 AM: Message edited by: Bad ]

[Destraex]

random spawning is good. that enough for me i think to have some great games

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Bad:

the enemy spawn is random in this game if you restart mission, have often seen it happen, got owned in a mission, restarted it and setup my forces to defend from where attack came 1st time, but woopsy, attack came from totaly different direction

Only if it was programed by the designer! The skill level is random if left at -1. As far as I know.

- Everything mentioned here is possible. I'm also not sure about the performance hit. Most triggers that use loops will run until the condition is met. But how many of those can you have running at the same time?

Also, the game engine itself is the big CPU sucker with it's huge sets of calculations. No mater how many triggers you put in your mission you will never compete with that!!

- I have just finished my first complete mission and it was a lot of fun to do. It takes time and patience. I should start adding more of those random events that increase the replayability of it by now. But I need a break!

That's the thing with mission design, it's never really finished!!!!

--

[Oudy]

I think that the scripting code is fairly robust, but I hope that Battlefront and 1C will be responsive to mission builders requests to expand the scripting commands. I know this was done with Il-2 and hope that it will be the same with TOW.

Oudy