|
Post by keepitsimple on Mar 8, 2015 11:03:58 GMT 1
In the game the player and AI can run without trouble over it's own minefields. If the mines are labeled as neutral (player 2) then both player and AI run into mines (tip: Major Pain). Personally, I would be against making the AI mines being neutral. The AI would no longer see it own mines and would simply run straight into it's own minefield. On the other hand for the player this would bring in a nice touch of realism. The player no longer can counter attack (without clearing mines first) through it's minefield that stopped the AI-attack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 13:26:15 GMT 1
I if I agree with neutral mines.
1st. Because mines have no friends.
2nd. because defending land, and always warns minefield, and this was a warning to the enemy and for the himself.
3rd. Because it is an obstacle object that performs the same function for all alike.
A greeting.
|
|
|
Post by schrad on Mar 8, 2015 14:34:30 GMT 1
The AI would no longer see it own mines and would simply run straight into it's own minefield. There i would be against too. The solution can be only, the troops get around known minefields.
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 8, 2015 15:08:15 GMT 1
The AI would no longer see it own mines and would simply run straight into it's own minefield. There i would be against too. The solution can be only, the troops get around known minefields. Same here. In general it wouldn't benefit the AI. However a couple of those "neutral" minefields couldn't hurt. For some situations or rather maps they would be quite useful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2015 18:58:39 GMT 1
The AI would no longer see it own mines and would simply run straight into it's own minefield. There i would be against too. The solution can be only, the troops get around known minefields. My answer is not intended to go against anyone, it's just one more opinion that wants to respect others. A greeting.
|
|
|
Post by schrad on Mar 8, 2015 19:03:31 GMT 1
I dont know if there a different now between the infantry and an engineer to discover mines. Maybe the range of the infantry to discover mines could be reduced. I thing it's not so easy for a soldier to discover mines without equipment.
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 8, 2015 19:06:33 GMT 1
I dont know if there a different now between the infantry and an engineer to discover mines. Maybe the range of the infantry to discover mines could be reduced. I thing it's not so easy for a soldier to discover mines without equipment. In fact as far as I know there is a big difference (somebody correct me if i'm wrong). See engineers can spot all mines. Once you order to remove them that is. Infantry can only detect AT mines. It can't see AP mines at all. However ranges for both are relatively balanced. If they were larger it would look funny. If they were smaller it would make missions much harder (though I support the idea for smaller mine spotting ranges).
|
|
|
Post by schrad on Mar 8, 2015 19:21:53 GMT 1
My answer is not intended to go against anyone I understood your post not of that kind?!
|
|
|
Post by ariete on Mar 10, 2015 20:44:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 10, 2015 21:43:01 GMT 1
The AI does not have a way to detect mines, nor will it remove mines in it's default commands.
Script would be required to have the AI look for mines.
So the assumption that the AI units would simply cross through a minefield is correct. The pathfinding code that is used within the game engine always tracks the shortest route to a coordinate. It does not look at minefields in the route.
I'm open on the neutral mine or Player 2 mine issue. There is a situation where this can really foul up a map for the AI. But if the mines only affect the Human Player... then that is one more Player handicap that makes the AI stronger.
Does this Equalize the AI or Penalize the Player?
I'm in the Equalize AI camp. We can only make the AI do what is either in the Hard Code, or what we provide. So it is only as smart as the Script or Code. Admittedly, the AI can be very hard to play against... but it will never be as smart as a Human.
Unless the Script really penalizes the Human Player, and assuming that the Script Writer has defined a Win Situation for the Human Player, the Human will always take advantage of the AI weaknesses.
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 10, 2015 22:49:52 GMT 1
The AI does not have a way to detect mines, nor will it remove mines in it's default commands. Script would be required to have the AI look for mines. So the assumption that the AI units would simply cross through a minefield is correct. The pathfinding code that is used within the game engine always tracks the shortest route to a coordinate. It does not look at minefields in the route. I'm open on the neutral mine or Player 2 mine issue. There is a situation where this can really foul up a map for the AI. But if the mines only affect the Human Player... then that is one more Player handicap that makes the AI stronger. Does this Equalize the AI or Penalize the Player? I'm in the Equalize AI camp. We can only make the AI do what is either in the Hard Code, or what we provide. So it is only as smart as the Script or Code. Admittedly, the AI can be very hard to play against... but it will never be as smart as a Human. Unless the Script really penalizes the Human Player, and assuming that the Script Writer has defined a Win Situation for the Human Player, the Human will always take advantage of the AI weaknesses. IMHO this is somewhat similar to "ophthalmo-teodor syndrome". Couple of solutions, yet the simplest one, also coincidentally the one that equilizes both player 1 and 2, is not really the best one. While neutral mines themselves are realistic. They create several problems: 1. Script needs to be longer 2. Creates problems for mappers Example for point 2 would be: player is tasked with taking a village (or anything else). The only way that leads there is across minefield. Yet the enemy has a similar objective. It has to take opposing village. Now this would mean that effectively either large gaps have to be formed in minefield (realistic, but...), which still holds a chance that enemy will unintentionally trigger a mine or two. OR Fairly large (not complicated) script has to be used. So what's the problem? Problem is in this way player will have easy way to beat the AI. Block the exit points and voila, enemy won't advance very far. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of you may not see this as a problem. Sure, randomize the minefield, give enemy better equipment, more men. Add all other tricks for AI. Well you could add all that and keep the minefields like before and it would still be a damn hard mission to complete. Are the neutral mines more realistic? Yes. Is this method more practical? No. Is it fun? IMHO yes, but not for me a as mapper. If you want to make a hard mission you can achieve that without having to use neutral mines. Also I'm all for realism, but I still maintain that in this case older version is more simple and thus effective. I would therefore argue that this kind of mines penalize the AI too much, while they don't change the stance of the player. Finally, I said it before and I say it now neutral mines would be very interesting in some cases, but in general I prefer the original.
|
|
|
Post by ariete on Mar 11, 2015 0:04:35 GMT 1
....... it was to laugh .... ......... (moderator understood) let free your panzergrenadierz to act, guys
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 1:52:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Mar 11, 2015 3:39:17 GMT 1
OK Ariete... understood... we need to watch the language and what could be mistaken as an attack... That was my concern...
Sorry to intervene but the language had to be removed.
Tedi makes a valid argument for his position. Perhaps we should put this question in a poll to see where the members are on this issue.
What say you Keep, Quin, Tedi, Ariete, Schrad, Wittman?
|
|
tedi88
General
Blitzkrieg State Prosecutor
Posts: 1,228
|
Post by tedi88 on Mar 11, 2015 13:15:47 GMT 1
|
|