Nato module - Any AI fixes?

[drtechno]

Hi..

Quick question.. Are there any AI improvements in the NATO module vs the most up to date CMSF patch? I love these game but essentially can't play them because the AI is so passive in QBs.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Eagle2]

I agree, I'd love to see some more reactive AI. But that would require a major change in the game that definitely won't take place in a module. The only hope i have is there will be a bit of an overhaul in Normandy, but I'm not holding my breath too much there either :/

[MikeyD]

Have you considered constructing your own QB AI orders sets? If you want the QB AI to assault from one corner of the map to the other all you have to do is adjust a few maps so they will.

I've advocated for awhile opening QB maps in the editor and adding precisely the units you want to play and resaving as 'quick-scenarios'. That was my solution to not getting the units you want in QB play. Opening them up and monkeying with the AI orders string would be the solution to not getting what you want in AI activity.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That's not really a serious alternative to an AI that's even quasi competent in QBs. Or QB force selection.

Luckily BFC seems to think so too, at least in the case of the latter.

[Plugger]

Goodaye,

Triggers? Hello?

It's a little difficult to classify the current game AI as anything other than a brain dead Artificial Time Keeper that robotically follows a preplanned time-based script.

No matter how smart you are with the Editor and scenario design you are still constrained by the limitation of having to shuffle units around with the clock being your only means of doing so.

Oh, it's T+30. Time to attack yonder building. Who cares what the OPFOR are doing? Who cares if there is a big tank in the way? Not I, for it's T+30 and I'm going to do as I was programmed.

I'd better point out that even with the non-existant AI (apart from the localised 'I'm under fire, better take cover') the game is still good but this is largely due to the lethality of modern weaponary and the fact that it is predominately the player who is attacking a static defence.

Triggers. Magic word.

No triggers, no ability to react to the player's actions.

Triggers. Hello?

Cheers,

Plugger

[MarkEzra]

Hi..

...I love these game but essentially can't play them because the AI is so passive in QBs.

Try a QB game when the new module/patch comes out.

[Paper Tiger]

That's not really a serious alternative to an AI that's even quasi competent in QBs.

Poor MikeyD. Unfortunately, it IS the only alternative that is available to you and it's not likely to change in the Normandy title either. You will be getting a whole batch of new QB maps with the new title and you can be sure that Mark Ezra will do a fantastic job making sure that each map has at least one (most likely 5 knowing Mark) AI plans. And they will further benefit from the 3 years of experience he has had making them too as his last post hints at.

As long as the map has been designed and tested properly you should find that the CMx2 AI can be far less predictable than the old CMx1 AI. It just moved units towards the flags. It was SO predictable that when you turned a flag in your favour, the AI would move out of its positions to counterattack. It was occassionally, accidentally brilliant when doing so too. But so is CMx2's AI. In addition, it won't JUST move to the VP objectives in a straight line. It might break into two groups and hit you on your flanks. Sure, it's following a script and that script might be wholly inappropriate to the tactical situation but when it gets it right...

Of course, triggers will improve the situation but they're still a wee bit off in the future. But until then, MikeyD's suggestion is the best one.

[Eagle2]

Try a QB game when the new module/patch comes out.

Is that an official statement? In what ways? I don't want to get my hopes up for nothing now.

[c3k]

Oh, that post certainly has my hopes up! A patch? With some sort of AI or (more likely) QB map update? That would be a very nice bonus release to go with CM:N.

Thanks,

Ken

[drtechno]

That's not really a serious alternative to an AI that's even quasi competent in QBs.

Poor MikeyD. Unfortunately, it IS the only alternative that is available to you and it's not likely to change in the Normandy title either. You will be getting a whole batch of new QB maps with the new title and you can be sure that Mark Ezra will do a fantastic job making sure that each map has at least one (most likely 5 knowing Mark) AI plans. And they will further benefit from the 3 years of experience he has had making them too as his last post hints at.

As long as the map has been designed and tested properly you should find that the CMx2 AI can be far less predictable than the old CMx1 AI. It just moved units towards the flags. It was SO predictable that when you turned a flag in your favour, the AI would move out of its positions to counterattack. It was occassionally, accidentally brilliant when doing so too. But so is CMx2's AI. In addition, it won't JUST move to the VP objectives in a straight line. It might break into two groups and hit you on your flanks. Sure, it's following a script and that script might be wholly inappropriate to the tactical situation but when it gets it right...

Of course, triggers will improve the situation but they're still a wee bit off in the future. But until then, MikeyD's suggestion is the best one.

Hmm.. not sure whats going on then. When I attempt to play a game where the AI has to move at all from its starting location, it just sits there moving back and forth indecisively.. never really moving from the start, colliding with its own vehicles, etc.

The only time it seems to work is in pre-generated scenarios (not QBs) with a set of orders.. and I use the term "work" very loosely since it still has many of the same problems.

[Hawk66]

Try a QB game when the new module/patch comes out.

any update what will be addressed in the new patch/NATO module?

[Alan8325]

I can see some problems that might be keeping triggers from showing up for a while. First of all, will and how will a trigger interact with spotting? In other words, when a unit that enters a trigger area hasn't yet been spotted by any enemy units, does the AI still respond to the trigger, even though it technically shouldn't know anyone is there? Secondly, is the response to a trigger always the same or is it dependent on the amount and/or types of units on it or near it? Does it respond to one recon team on foot in the same way as a platoon of Abrams tanks?

When these issues can be worked out triggers will be great additions to the AI but I'm not holding my breath.

[Thomm]

There is something else to consider: suppose the enemy unit that spots your advancing units is out of contact with its higher-ups: should the trigger be activated or not? In other words: should, e.g., a bailed-out tank crew without a radio or any other means of communication be able to initiate an AI move?

Best regards,

Thomm

[MarkEzra]

Dear Dr. Techno:

I assume you mean the AI in a Meeting Engagement Scen. You are describing a lack of action that was addressed a while back. I think you may have a set of early QB Maps (maybe). V1.21 AI work as advertised. I test with QB maps all the time so I have no doubts about this. Whenever the NATO Patch is released You might went to delete your QB Map file found at CMSF/Game File/Quick Battle Maps and allow the patch to install a complete new Quick Battle Maps file.

[meade95]

Why not set up CMSF to at least be able to run random patrols (within a given area). This area could be placed by the designer .....and then whatever units you give a patrol order to would by synced within whichever zone you place them into. They would then randomly patrol that zoned area (could be part of a city, for example).