Balancing Scenarios... AI_ONLY Units, a solution?

[xian]

I think that most scenario designers will agree with me that it can be tricky to prepare missions that provide the human player with an equal challenge no matter which side he chooses to play against the AI.

For example: You get the scenario balanced just right for when the human player chooses Allied vs Axis, but it becomes far too easy to win if he chooses to play Axis vs Allied instead. If you then try to re-balance the Allied unit selection to help the AI, you can end up messing up your original finely tuned work. Thus, many scenarios are really only playable from one side only.

I think that I may have come up with a solution that is both elegant and easy to implement:

AI-ONLY UNITS.

Certain units are marked as 'AI Only' in the mission editor, and are not available to the human player when he/she plays that side (the units will simply not appear on the map for the human player). So, you might mark certain units as AI-Only for both sides. This would provide the AI with that extra punch it needs to make up for its tactical and intelligence deficiencies.

In the editor you might see:

Light Machinegun Team [A3, U1, AI_ONLY]

You could then set the AI up with that extra squad it needs for an attack or perhaps some additional reinforcements that you wouldn't want a human player to have access to because their inclusion would make the mission just too easy for him/her.

Naturally, whether to include these units is up to the mission designer.

Thoughts?

[permanent666]

good idea

at the moment you could just create three different scenarios and upload them. should not be very much extra work.

[xian]

Yes I agree - but very few people want 3 versions of one mission in their mission folder.

[George MC]

Jeez guys! It's enough work making one scenario never mind balancing it for three differant play versions. Nope not for me sirree.

[Sgt Schultz]

Aye George.... these puppies don't just make themselves.

If I want complete balance for either side I will make a Meeting Engagement.

Anything else is Human vs AI, as my attacks involve more than 8 groups on the offensive.

If a player finds that one side is 'too easy', they can submit a comment to the designer and/or mess around in the editor to tweak the battle themselves.

Spend a few weeks in scenario author mode tweaking, and you may see what is being asked.

[xian]

So - what you guys are saying is that no one should bother making AI plans for both sides?

I thought that nearly every official scenario included plans for both ALLIED and AXIS?

Or - are you not getting my suggestion?

The idea is to make the 'tweaking' much easier- simple as that.

[Statisoris]

I really like that idea Xian. Having AI-Only units could also serve the purpose of removing some micromanagement from a scenario by handling simple combat tasks such as holding a position or shoring up your flanks. It could also introduce the idea of "having to deal with other commanders" into scenarios. Company commanders don't get direct control over all battlefield forces in actual combat. There are many extra scenario design possibilities if we had AI-Only units.

[umlaut]

I think this sounds like a very good idea, xian. I´m having the exact samt sort of problem with a scenario I´m working on now. I´ll have to make an entirely separate version for Axis vs AI.

+1

[Sgt Schultz]

I get you xian. I was aggreeing with George's response to the fellow suggesting multiple versions. Got forced afk before finishing.

All of this response loses meaning the smaller the battle considered. One 'toon versus one 'toon means a single LMG team is a game-changer.

While I agree with your suggestion in principle as one cool option to have(under a different guise)... in practice not so much.

The issue I have is the difference between a human who just picked up the game last month versus... let's say Rune or Winecape.

Sometimes a battle is just going to go south for some people while at the same time it is going to be a cakewalk for others. The number of units available is usually a minor variable in the greater scheme of things unless it is a sizable percentage of total force.

Adding and deleting units requires more testing with consideration of the experience level of the human playing taken into account.

Then there is the 'historical accuracy' question that is a concern to many designers. Not to me of course, which is why I like the idea.

Now instead of using just as an AI thing, how about say three settings...

Elite - Core units

Regular - Core + 1st additional unit(s)

Green - Core + 1st and 2nd additional unit(s)

It is still basically three versions worth of testing... no... more... one for each permutation. But it gets a single release. I would do it, but some might not want to put in the extra time.

As for AI plans for attacking. Again, for smaller battles sure it works. However, combined arms company-or-larger takes too many groups for an effective attack. I would rather have eight more groups than this concept if I had my druthers over coding time.

Your idea may be a much larger help/lower workload to smaller RT battles, which may explain my ambivalance. I am more of a PBEM company or larger type.

[xian]

I see your point about the historical accuracy - altering the force balance for the AI wouldn't necessarily please the purists.

Your idea about different skill levels is a good one, but I would suggest that it might be better to simplify it by including a feature to automatically add/remove a certain percentage of units (much as in the force modifier in QB), rather than having to manually create separate AI plans for each skill level. Maybe this would work best if the mission were designed for 'Elite' level, with lower settings programmed to automatically/manually subtract units.

In a way - you could probably combine both of our ideas into a single workable solution.

[De Savage]

I like this idea! Have been thinking the same that against AI there could be extra units.

I you have my vote! And for scenario makers, this is OPTIONAL. So if you don't like it, don't use it.

[mjkerner]

I vote for the idea of allowing the active player to designate his own units as AI-only. I like being in large, battalion+ battles, but I reallly don't want to manage it all. One company is all I really want to manage, except it would be nice to override the same-side AI when a unit starts to act funky. Basically, the Matrix/Norbsoft Take Command game system, except that had very lousy AI.

[rune]

Won't work and would require major re-coding. Both sides do get an ai plan, but the side you pick the ai plan is NOT used. The AI just works on the opposite side. have asked for ai vs ai since cmsf alpha for testing scenarios and it hasn't been done, you won't see it coded any time soon.

in the meantime, you can balance a scenario to be played either side, just takes a lot of practice and play testing a scenario. MEs do work out, but can be done with attack/defend scenarios but moe difficult. However, I agree, there is ZERO chance I am making 3 versions of a scenario.

Rune

[MikeyD]

Sometimes when I build an AI attacker scenario the AI will do a better job in the attack than me because I tend to be cautious - and therefore get heavily mortared. When I'm on the defensive I get fidgety waiting for the enemy to show and so get myself into unnecessary trouble. We've seen people post utter failure and total victory on the same scenario. Shooting for some balanced 'ideal' seems like an impossible task. One person plays a scenario where an enemy HMG emplacement holds back half his company. Someone else plays the same scenario and that HMG gets taken out in the first five minutes no problemo.

[Sergei]

Thoughts?

It's a valid approach, and has actually been suggested to BFC before along with different variations. Eg. being able to tag units according to set difficulty level - an AI Panther might show up in medium difficulty or above, an AI Kingtiger would only be seen when playing on Hard difficulty. Maybe it will be added with some future title (I doubt something like this can be retrofitted since it affects scenario format), but there are a zillion things that BFC wants to add or improve in the game over time, so it will take time before we see it.