A concern related to AI scripting

[SteveP]

AI orders is something of a black art, even to the old hands. You open scenarios by different designers and find entirely different 'personalities' to their AI orders sets. Some fill all the slots in the AI orders set with finely choreographed troops movements. Others paint with a broad brish (quite literally) and rely on the AI's situational responses to drive the action.

MikeyD: Please read my post just above your post. I am not trying to create a scenario. I was trying to understand why the AI attacker in a scenario included with the game played so badly. There are a number of reasons, but I don't believe they fall into the "black art" category. One of the reasons is that the Advance order does not do what it is supposed to do (IMHO).

[MikeyD]

If you're talking about a specific scenario AI issue what's the scenario name and what AI group? Otherwise its a general question.

[SteveP]

Otherwise its a general question.

No. The Advance order works the same in every scenario/QB. I am proposing that it does not work the way it is supposed to work, or otherwise it is not a useful order and tends to get the AI troops into trouble.

I expect someone who is reading this thread will actually investigate for themselves. I'm happy to wait on that development.

[Sgt Joch]

No. The Advance order works the same in every scenario/QB. I am proposing that it does not work the way it is supposed to work, or otherwise it is not a useful order and tends to get the AI troops into trouble.

I expect someone who is reading this thread will actually investigate for themselves. I'm happy to wait on that development.

SteveP, the scenario editor is not a new feature, it is the same that was in CMSF and that has been used by many people to create hundreds of scenarios and campaigns over the past 4 years.

ADVANCE works as it is designed, there is no "bug" and nothing to fix.

You obviously are a new to the scenario editor and are having trouble understanding how to use it to its best effect. The manual only skims the surface of what it possible. I would suggest you read the link I posted above

on the scenario editor and do a search of the CMSF forums, there were many threads over the years discussing various tips.

As pointed out above, you can probably achieve what you wish by using multiple AI groups and moving your AI force in steps. If ADVANCE is not the order you want, they are others to move your force slower or faster.

[Paper Tiger]

SteveP

AI Groups are frequently composed of a mixed bunch of units. Let's break them into three categories as they will all do something different with the same movement order.

There are FAST unit which are incapable of splitting and thus can't use the Assault order. These include Scouts, Snipers, Ammo bearers, and Light weapons teams. Vehicles that are part of this group will fall into this category.

There are ASSAULT units. Units that can split. No need to categorise these.

Finally there are HQs and mortar teams

When we issue this mixed group an ADVANCE movement order to move to its first map zone, this is what we see happen generally:

1st - The FAST units get QUICK movement orders and fly off ahead of everybody else.

2nd - The ASSAULT units get Assault orders at the same time. Obviously it's going to take them a bit longer to get there.

3rd - The HQ and mortar units will hang back until at least one unit in its group reaches the first map zone. Then they get QUICK movement orders.

Obviously, a FAST unit is going to get there first and so trigger the HQ's movement. Depending on the length beweeen the two map zones, the HQ wll most likely fly ahead of the ASSAULT units resulting in its death.

Now, remove all the FAST units from your group and you'll see the HQs hanging back until the first ASSAULT unit reaches the map zone. Then they start moving. In other words, the lag behind quite badly.

So AI group composition will make a big difference to how the group behaves.

BTW, if you change the movement command to QUICK, you'll see the ASSAULT units mostly use QUICK movement orders instead of ASSAULT orders.

Hope that helped.

[SteveP]

When we issue this mixed group an ADVANCE movement order to move to its first map zone, this is what we see happen generally:

1st - The FAST units get QUICK movement orders and fly off ahead of everybody else.

2nd - The ASSAULT units get Assault orders at the same time. Obviously it's going to take them a bit longer to get there.

3rd - The HQ and mortar units will hang back until at least one unit in its group reaches the first map zone. Then they get QUICK movement orders.

I have never seen this happen, as you describe, with a group executing the Advance order. Also, I would never use the Advance order for any purpose, if that is what it does. I would like to have on order that causes the AI units to use Move or Hunt. None of them do. I think this is a handicap for the AI.

But enough is enough. I am a bit disappointed that no one else has actually taken a look at this since my OP, but sometimes that is that way it goes.

[Paper Tiger]

I have never seen this happen, as you describe, with a group executing the Advance order

Really? What I described is generally what happens when you keep the distance between the two map zones quite short, i.e. about 100m or less for Infantry groups. If you are issuing them with substantially longer orders then the behaviour I described will become exaggerated. Distance does matter.

Also, I would never use the Advance order for any purpose, if that is what it does.

Then don't use it That will save you quite a bit of head-banging, won't it?

I would like to have on order that causes the AI units to use Move or Hunt. None of them do.

Yup, so would I and perhaps we'll have this functionality after BFC redesign the game interface. But at present, we can't.

I think this is a handicap for the AI.

I disagree with you here but you are entitled to your opinion.

There are design limitations and we have to work within them and push them to the limit. You have to accept these limitations. You can't issue MOVE and HUNT orders to AI groups even though a Human player can (although I rarely use either). If you issue an AI group that has a mortar team an order to move into a zone with buildings, then the AI might move the mortar into that building. However, if you create a special AI group that contains units that you don't want to go into a building, you can work around this limitation. It costs you an AI group but it prevents that behaviour from spoiling your game experience.

And we have ALL been petitioning BFC for more AI groups for years.

[Sgt Joch]

I have never seen this happen, as you describe

oh? Not to be unkind, but how long have you been working with the scenario editor? How many scenarios have you designed and released? Paper Tiger is about as close to a resident expert that you can get around here, he knows what he is talking about.

[winkelried]

very good discussion - i now understand, why my AI HMGs get blasted away leading the attack of an infantry company - my thread got 0 replies ... would be nice if you BF guys could start something like a scenario design tutorial or something like that.

[SteveP]

I was wrong on one point.

I had said that infantry using the Advance order would always cause the HQs to reach the next Map Zone first. I think this is true only for US paratrooper platoons (which, unfortunately, were my test subject before -- I hadn't considered that the behavior might vary by type of unit ). With other unit types, the behavior in this regard is variable, but I can only guess about why.

It still looks to me like Advance and Assault produce the same behavior (with infantry), except that Assault protects the HQs in every case, and I believe it protects some key support teams like MGs (but not all).

I would still like to know if there are any positives to using Advance that make it a better choice than Assault (or Quick for that matter) in certain situations. So far, in my (limited) experiments with editing the AI Plans in existing scenarios, I have gotten significantly better results for an attacking AI force when using Quick and Assault, and never using Advance. But -- as others pointed out in the thread -- I am new to this territory.

[Cull]

Glad I saw this thread, as it's pointed out some things of which I was totally unaware. I was really starting to wonder how designers made the AI as good as it has been in a few of the battles I've played.

The bit about mortars etc as separate groups is especially helpful. Not sure why that didn't occur to me, but I guess I've just been locked into thinking of "groups" as being the same as "units"---obviously they don't have to be.

Question: someone earlier linked to a Mac version of the design "manual"; can someone point me to a PC version? TIA