Fuser Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I don´t know if this has been asked before, if it has been neglected or considered to be too hard, but I REALLY would like to have more AI groups available for the scenario editor. Actually we have just 8, it may sound a lot, but try to make the AI to flank, defend or whatever and soon you realize that eight groups it´s just not enough if you want to make the AI a tough opponent. Meeting engagements (and attacks of course) are the toughest to design for the AI. We don´t have many, and if you play one of them, soon you will see tons of enemy troops following the same path, looking for cover under the same tree, piling,...looks like they are crazy, but man, they are victims of "just one single AI Group for a platoon" problem. Some places in the map are of vital tactical importance, and are marked "in yellow" accordingly, but if you have to cover a 900 meter wide front with one company, you split teams, look for perfect spots to cover, play the scenario test and soon realize, that this or that forest or hill wasn´t covered properly, but you don´t have enough AI groups to cover them consistently. Defend scenarios are easier for the designer. You actually don´t even need Plans or groups. Now go and take a look at the repository and look for meeting engagements against the AI...keep searching...not too many , huh? So, BF, please, if possible, adding more AI groups would be a very welcomed addition. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 +1 for this although there was an earlier thread on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LemuelG Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 So, BF, please, if possible, adding more AI groups would be a very welcomed addition. Thank you. Agreed, hopefully it is being worked on at the same time as AI triggers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 +1 here too... Defending is easy. Just make 1-3 AI plans and set them for different ambush range. Making AI attack I always run out or AI plans and I need to make compromisses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Defending could be tricky as well because if one unit in an ai group breaks its ambush every other unit in this ai group abandons the ambush as well. at least in cmsf this was the case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 +1 here too... Defending is easy. This is true when you work on static defense. IMHO it's not really possible to define a flexible defense (e.g. fall back to a new line of defense, when the first one is broken) except with a somewhat arbitrary timing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 also the flexible use of reserves or counterattacks is difficult since triggers are missing (same holds for flexible defense) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 This is true when you work on static defense. IMHO it's not really possible to define a flexible defense (e.g. fall back to a new line of defense, when the first one is broken) except with a somewhat arbitrary timing. Not necessarily arbitrary. One of the other unrealistic things about a game like CMBN is that you can impose a time limit on the attacker. So to some extent you can key timings to the likely pace of events and what you need to protect when. That's not so much a disagreement (I also think the AI scripting function needs more tools to work with). Just an observation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuser Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share Posted July 28, 2011 One of the things I would like implemented is non-time triggers. "After Exit Before /Exit Triggers "are a good addition, but require huge amounts of betatesting (not all players advance crawling, nor on FAST,so your time triggers are always estimates). If we had some kind of "if losses over 75% THEN move back to X", " "If under attack THEN Hide", " If not attacked THEN advance to" triggers, AI would be a serious opponent, well..., some kind of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 Not necessarily arbitrary. One of the other unrealistic things about a game like CMBN is that you can impose a time limit on the attacker. If fully agree. That's also why I appreciate the long time limits you can use on CMx2 compared to CMx1. A battle lasting 3-4 hours is quite realistic. 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.