Trigger AI

[gianluca74]

Hi all,

someone know if it will ever be implemented the possibility to use "trigger" in scenario design?

Thanks

[afreu]

On top of my wishlist as well, but I think it's not going to happen in any of the future releases (normandy, cmsfII).

Though it's possible I missed some hint somewhere.

[pazuzusmiles]

CMSFII?!? Where did you hear this at? Im fairly new to the forums. I'd love to read/hear more about the rumours, ect about that project!!

[Boche]

CMSFII?!? Where did you hear this at? Im fairly new to the forums. I'd love to read/hear more about the rumours, ect about that project!!

nothing is out yet, its just a planned project probably after normandy or who knows

[Mord]

CMSFII?!? Where did you hear this at? Im fairly new to the forums. I'd love to read/hear more about the rumours, ect about that project!!

It will be a US/Nato Vs Russia or China or maybe North Korea based game, fought in a temperate setting. I am hoping for Russia, myself.

Mord.

[pazuzusmiles]

Russia would be great..I mean our countries got all dressed up for the big Cold War that never came..It'd be great to let all that military hardware have at it in the enviroments they were originally designed for..When I first heard of NATO coming out I thought it was NATO VS Warsaw pact kind of thing..So Im just giddy over the rumours..no sleep for this kid tonight! Thanks for imfo guys!

[Erwin]

So long as CMSFII portrays LANDWARRIOR, RAILGUNS and transforming robots (and any other new-fangled DOD stuff they used to boast about) I don't care where it's set.

[akd]

Hi all,

someone know if it will ever be implemented the possibility to use "trigger" in scenario design?

Thanks

There are currently time "triggers", but these do not work in several key situations, most importantly retreats and counterattacks. Currently these two key situations rely on the scenario designer guessing the time in a scenario when the player will be located on an objective or key piece of terrain, then triggering AI plans based on that time. When it works, it feels like a brilliant AI counterattack, but when the designer's guess doesn't coincide with the players actual location, the totally-out-of-context triggered AI plan will kill all player suspension of disbelief and often ruin the scenario. This is very easy to see in the new QB AI plans: sometimes they play out great, sometimes they result in total absurdity.

To move forward with scenario design, we need at least these two simple triggers:

1. AI Plan triggered by player occupying/touching objective.

2. AI Plan triggered by AI player force condition.

[Alan8325]

To move forward with scenario design, we need at least these two simple triggers:

1. AI Plan triggered by player occupying/touching objective.

2. AI Plan triggered by AI player force condition.

Would these be linked to what the AI-controlled units have spotted, or would the AI automatically know when the trigger events happen exactly when they happen? The second trigger mentioned should be easy enough, but the occupy/touch trigger I would think needs to be dependent on the relative spotting rules so that the AI doesn't know the human player units are in a certain location without having spotted them.

[Ribosom]

Would these be linked to what the AI-controlled units have spotted, or would the AI automatically know when the trigger events happen exactly when they happen? The second trigger mentioned should be easy enough, but the occupy/touch trigger I would think needs to be dependent on the relative spotting rules so that the AI doesn't know the human player units are in a certain location without having spotted them.

Something like the OFP/Arma "X present", "X spotted by Y" etc. triggersystem would be nice.

[dan/california]

From Johny FGM in another thread.

"AI triggers

The way I seem them is a simple leave after command for each order in an AI plan

So you'd have

Leave after:

Contact

Firing once

Firing for x seconds

Time

This would allow for half decent fighting withdrawals"

This would be an excellent list for the first iteration. Any triggers are a vast improvement over none.

[Waaarg]

Anyone think the recent development with NATO and Russia will effect them being a viable opponent come time for SF2 given the lead time?

[MikeyD]

Well, the new House majority is trying to kill the START treaty. If SF2 coincides with the inauguration of president Palin then pretty much any war scenario you can think of is plausible.

[gianluca74]

To move forward with scenario design, we need at least these two simple triggers:

1. AI Plan triggered by player occupying/touching objective.

2. AI Plan triggered by AI player force condition.

I totally agree.

The best thing would be able to "fire" a trigger based on unit spotting.

I believe that the lack of trigger very penalizing the game.

In this way Artificial Intelligence is now blind.

[ASL Veteran]

Well, the new House majority is trying to kill the START treaty. If SF2 coincides with the inauguration of president Palin then pretty much any war scenario you can think of is plausible.

Unless you are a journalist, Putin is the most gentle, nationally gregarious, and peaceful man on the planet so I don't see any reason why he would want to launch an attack on the US just because Palin was elected (I doubt she will run anyway). Incidentally treaties aren't voted on in the House. Treaties are only voted on in the Senate.

[snake_eye]

One of the best trigger, I would like, will be the one telling a squad to fire and move after a determined time, starting from the moment of seeing and or being engaged by the enemy and not from the time frame plotted in the editor

Right now, we can only use the time setting to instruct the squad to move after X time and before X time. That is good, but the biggest inconvenient is that the squad will move as told and with a complete disregard of the situation. It could have been better to wait for the enemy to close in. However if it takes more time than the one already set, the squad will leave its position.

As said earlier triggers like the ones found in ARMA would be a good buy.

Cheers

[c3k]

Agreed, triggers would be a boon to playing vs. the AI. In my imaginary world, the designer could set triggers by using a TARGET ARC command which would open up the subset of orders.

Obviously, BF.C has been considering these types of additions and weighing the cost/benefit to implement them. When the benefit exceeds the cost to a degree greater than the benefit:cost ratio of ALL THE OTHER THINGS they're considering and doing, then they'll start working on it. In the meantime, I like hearing the varied suggestions being created and only hope that BF.C is keeping track of all these ideas, in case this type of coding can be implemented.

Ken

[Ron]

True, there are a whole host of user requests put forth for BFC's consideration, but triggers would be an integral part of the game experience and probably why they have been asked for since the beginning. I hope the beta-testers/scenario gurus have been pushing for these also!

[Erwin]

And hey, maybe it's time for an "ordinary person President" like Palin. The (almost all wealthy) political elites that we now have in govt are so separated from the problems of working people we have bizarre situations like the poor tax-paying sap having to bail out the super-wealthy who lost their $ in the stock market. <Sorry... rant over.>

[Waaarg]

And hey' date=' maybe it's time for an "ordinary person President" like Palin. The (almost all wealthy) political elites that we now have in govt are so separated from the problems of working people we have bizarre situations like the poor tax-paying sap having to bail out the super-wealthy who lost their $ in the stock market. <Sorry... rant over.>[/quote']

Doh..........

[Lanzfeld]

Wow c3k,

A trigger when the enemy enters a covered arc. I really like that idea. I wonder how hard that would be to add?

[afreu]

Aren't there already some kind of trigger involved with the Ambush 75m, 100m, ... option in the AI plans? Seems like that could be a starting point to develop extended trigger functionality.

[akd]

You are correct afreu, that would constitute a trigger that is not time-based, but there is little that can be done with it as it does not affect overall AI plan, e.g. there is no way to tell a unit to ambush and then withdrawal, which is one of those basic commonsense tactical actions that is currently impossible for CM AI.

[Skeptible]

Unless you are a journalist, Putin is the most gentle, nationally gregarious, and peaceful man on the planet so I don't see any reason why he would want to launch an attack on the US just because Palin was elected (I doubt she will run anyway). Incidentally treaties aren't voted on in the House. Treaties are only voted on in the Senate.

I think he was thinking the other way around, at least that was how I read it.

[Plugger]

G'day,

Agreed, triggers would be a boon to playing vs. the AI. In my imaginary world, the designer could set triggers by using a TARGET ARC command which would open up the subset of orders.

Obviously, BF.C has been considering these types of additions and weighing the cost/benefit to implement them. When the benefit exceeds the cost to a degree greater than the benefit:cost ratio of ALL THE OTHER THINGS they're considering and doing, then they'll start working on it. In the meantime, I like hearing the varied suggestions being created and only hope that BF.C is keeping track of all these ideas, in case this type of coding can be implemented.

Understand that BF have a cost/benefit equation that they are working too.

However I personally think that going forward with both further CM:SF modules and CM:N whilst continuing with a brain dead AI isn't going to be a winning formula.

Reason being competition from other products. The majority of players buy these military simulation type games for single player use.

No matter how good CM:SF is if it doesn't have an AI that can 'react' in some measure or form (and in it's current incarnation it is totally incapable of reacting to anything other than a preset clock) then you're going to bleed customers to competitors.

There is always going to be a vocal hardcore of supporters for any game that are will rally around the flag. But at some point continuing to develop and sell a game system with a brain dead AI that can't react to the players actions is going to bite you hard in the backside.

Imagine what this game would be like to play if you had to take into account an AI that was capable of doing things in response to something you did?

Unfortunately for BF you an experience this elsewhere.

As a postscript I'm not in anyway associated with a competiting product. I own every iteration of CM that has been produced and I'm simply a supporter scratching their head in amazement at the opportunity that BF are providing to others in not rectifying a glaring deficiency in an otherwise excellent game system.

Cheers,

Plugger