permanent666 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 bf said in the tcip/wego thread that they primarily focus on the single player experience. and they did a great job. to please the single player crowd even more, ai triggers would be great. for now the ai is not flexible enough to offer a realistic game experience. i don't say that the ai is not challenging enough but sometimes it's actions are rather silly especially on the attack. but even on the defense triggers would be neat to reajust defence forces or to let loose counterattacks. i know some mission designers are very good in predicting the player's strategy but even a small set of triggers could spice up the solo play even more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJ62 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Triggers would give the AI some serious muscle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 We have been lobbying for event triggers and other improvements to the scenario editor for some time. Hopefully, it will be in the next major release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Second it! It's very hard to design AI for a scenario only based on guessed timetables. Triggers would be great. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 At the very least there should be a fix for the instances where a unit gets turned back from an advance and then just sits in one spot for the rest of the battle. Or like in the Barkman's (?) Corner AAR where one of the Shermans broke through and just sat in one spot, doing nothing since it had reached its objective. A reset timer of some sort, or maybe a function where any units in a certain area of the map receive new orders at X time. Just something to give the system more flexibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Nobody doesn't want triggers (though I'm not particularly enthused about them, myself), but would you have been willing to wait another 6-7-8 months for CM:BN to get them? Personally, I worry when/if triggers show up scenario designers will over-rely on them. Then game might turn into a 'haunted house' arcade game with units jumping out to say "Boo!" every time you turn a corner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Nobody doesn't want triggers (though I'm not particularly enthused about them, myself), but would you have been willing to wait another 6-7-8 months for CM:BN to get them? Personally, I worry when/if triggers show up scenario designers will over-rely on them. Then game might turn into a 'haunted house' arcade game with units jumping out to say "Boo!" every time you turn a corner. Not sure what you mean here? I played and still somewhat play the TOW series and that game institutes 'triggers'. From the little bit of knowledge that I gained from the forum and creating small scenarios I like what triggers could do for the single player experience. Now they are a pain to work with and require specific knowledge on editing the .xml files. Not for the feint of heart. If a simple interface could be built for the scenario editor that would be great but it is 'not going to happen' with this game. Check out this thread or just do a search for 'triggers' in the TOW section. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89117 Notice how they talk about loading up units / transporting them to a point/ dismounting/ and then storming a certain section of the map. If this was possible in CM the scenario designers out there would be ecstatic. This stuff gets complicated but these guys are players like anyone here and have learned as the game evolved. Too bad we cannot merge the two games good and good points and get a TOW/CM hybrid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 We have some very skilled campaign makers out there who cut their teeth on CMSF...it won't be long after the full release when they start to bring new ones out...then you wouldn't be worrying about triggers...Paper Tiger makes killer scenarios\campaigns...and there are a couple of others aswell... Wait and see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 We have some very skilled campaign makers out there who cut their teeth on CMSF...it won't be long after the full release when they start to bring new ones out...then you wouldn't be worrying about triggers...Paper Tiger makes killer scenarios\campaigns...and there are a couple of others aswell... Wait and see... I see nowhere in this thread a post about worrying about triggers? The few posts here just simple state an opinion that the single player missions would be more interesting if the scenario designers had 'triggers' to make the plan more complex. Not one person bashed a scenario designer or any specific scenario's. We all know there are talented designers out there we can navigate the repository and find them. Your point is moot though. CMBN and CMSF have the same tools available for building scenarios. Unless soomething new has been added you can enlighten us. Eventhough Paper Tiger is an excellent scenario maker (which I 110% agree) unless he has something new to work with he will be limited to the same depth of AI plans that he had years ago with CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I'd like to see triggers added as well. I imagine that it would aid in more prolonged battles. That said, the AI has been taught to give a pretty decent fight by the people that did the two full scale battles. But the more useful tools available to scenario designers, the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 i guess the basic code for triggers is already there because the tac ai works with triggers, the scoring works with triggers and so on. e.g.: IF a sherman tank faces a tiger tank THEN it pops smoke and reverse IF axis casuality rate reaches a certain treshold THEN axis surrender IF squad 1 touches objective xy THEN message pops up squad xy reached objective xy IF game ends AND allies occupy objective xy THEN allies get xy points Why not: IF allies touch point xy THEN ai-group 2 will full assault point xy IF ai-group two's casuality treshold is reached THEN ai-group 2 will retreat to area xy i think the biggest challenge for bf is to integrate this kind of triggers into the editor's ui 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afreu Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I agree, that triggers would push CMSF/BN gameplay to the next level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Quick Battles would immensely benefit from triggers. I have played quick battles that were a complete miss. Triggers would compensate for the randomness of the forces chosen by the human player, and the path the AI takes in response to how the human player maneuvers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Any response to this? Are triggers something that may be possible in the future? Or is this beating a dead horse? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Triggers would be also very useful when used with reinforcements. Like: If (enemy spotted within area X), after delay of Y minutes, reinforcementZ arrives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Triggers is (are?) definitely on their wish-list. I can say I am literally the only person that has had any reservations at all about the utility of triggers. I mean that - the only one. Makes me popular during internal discussions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildman Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I have some as well...they are extremely powerful, but extremely hard to implement correctly. Look at Steelbeats Pro....exclusive use of AI triggers, but you had to implement trigger areas...visibility counts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Triggers is (are?) definitely on their wish-list. I can say I am literally the only person that has had any reservations at all about the utility of triggers. I mean that - the only one. Makes me popular during internal discussions. Hello MikeyD, I had to go way back to get this one.: Where on the wish list is triggers? Top, middle ,bottom. I am a single player most of the time so triggers are at the top of my wish list. I'm trying to figure out how to set up a defense in the editor and with out triggers it is going to be mostly a guessing game for me. It seems to me that the present system will narrow down the scenario makers to a talented few. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatmasta Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 The triggers would be really good! Just today I played one of the Road to Montebourg campaign scenarios and as usually i push my troops on quite narrow path and was able to flank a Pz IV which was just sitting on it's original place. It should have repositioned itself when hearing the battle sounds from it's flank. The Pz appearing to my flank would have been nasty surprise because most of my troops had passed it before i noticed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 +1 for triggers! It's almost impossible now to make AI defend actively. Now scenario makers have to make "best guess" when player reach some point and when AI is making his move. Every player have their own pace. Now it's always compromise for AI and usually it's best to make static AI defender. With trigger. Example when "unit sees enemy" -> tigger plan 2 etc. or maybe area tigger - when unit enters this area - trigger AI plan 3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 +1 for triggers! It's almost impossible now to make AI defend actively. Now scenario makers have to make "best guess" when player reach some point and when AI is making his move. Every player have their own pace. Now it's always compromise for AI and usually it's best to make static AI defender. With trigger. Example when "unit sees enemy" -> tigger plan 2 etc. or maybe area tigger - when unit enters this area - trigger AI plan 3. I agree, a static defense would have caused me much more trouble in a scenario that I just finished. A Panther on my left flank on top of a rise caused me to advance very slowly on my right flank and a Panther on my right flank was slowing down my advance completely on my left flank. All I could do was to creep up on my right flank and advance down the middle. But about 20 moves into the game both Panthers withdrew allowing me to advance across the whole front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.