Some ideas...

[Janh]

Hi guys,
great news that TC2M is getting a new brother!
I suppose some people now the battle site already, but I didn't find anything unambiguous in the forum -- could the next '62 major battle on the East following 2nd Manassas?

I have been working for a couple of weeks on davinci's old GB map, and scenarios. I adjusted the map size and scales of everything (incl. troops, ranges, tables etc) so that it now includes Wolf's Hill, Round top and a few hundred yards beyond that, so it can make up for some interesting flanking maneuvers and give a more exciting, less "map-limited" battle (imagine Hood, McLaws, Johnson and Anderson swooping over Round Top at noon of the 2nd, or crashing down the slopes of Wolfs Hill into the Union rear -- wasn't entirely impossible, was it?). I used a variety of historical maps, and the rough ideas from the old Sid Meiers Gettysburg Map.
The detail in terms of buildings and features ain't as much as on the Fredericksburg or stock maps, but one thing I always prefer over "map details" is the bigger picture -- so I hope the new engine allows in principle to create maps the size of the Chancellorsville battlefield, for an extreme. I'd like maps just to span the entire battlefields at once, so it can make up for a many days "full battle" scenarios.

I have also been working on a Union and a Confederate 3 days scenario with TC2M, just using three 12h intervals without night in between. From these experiences, I want to point out a few things I'd wish to be improved (more important than a campaign, which in my opinion would be the next step after "full scale" battles and more important than multiplayer -- or dream a bit and think of marrying Forge of Freedom with TC2...).
My scenarios are working well with some scripting as the AI indeed is really quite good, at least till morning of the 2nd day. I have adjusted the fatigue an moral setting that troops will rarely rout (and be totally lost, happens only for really diminished units, and unfortunately artillery), but retreat out of sight and take a good half day to get back into fighting shape (so if you maul Heth on the 1st, he won't be in shape for offensive actions on the 2nd, but still capable of defending Seminary ridge if necessary -- AI luckily keeps exhausted/broken troops indeed in the rear -- great!). Also troops will get exhausted during fighting and long marches, so that they won't attack or advance forever. That way divisions don't just keep advancing till they are entirely broken, but also will stop -- Hood and McLaws for instance won't be in that great shape to be reformed for a 3rd day attack, or also Early and Rodes, not to mention Howard and Reynolds do need a break after the 1st day fighting.

However, also this AI always prefers the direct route for an attack, so since usually there are some skirmishes around Cemetery Hill/south Gettysburg on the morning of the 2nd day, the AI usually shuffles all troops there (Anderson, Johnson, Longstreet). But I am working on the scripting for that, too. So here a few ideas/suggestions, for some of which it hopefully won't be to late to implement:

1. Open map sizes, scales etc.
2. Scenario structure: Time management for multiple day scenarios! Manage length of day && night cycles; different morale/fatigue && AI aggressiveness parameters (only rare night battles).
2. Possibility to disable "routing off map", and possibility to define where broken/routed units finally run towards (occasionally broken regiments remain hidden in woods behind my lines, and guess what that leads to if AI tries to reunite them with their commanders, or even brigades!)
3. More AI commands: Assault, Reserves, Support (commander X), Artillery defense (hold fire until engaged), Artillery attack etc. Also the possibility to return command to AI, so it could follow the scripting of the scenario again.
4. Command to hold fire for infantry!
5. Command to build entrenchments! (long-term forts would be cool too -- imagine Cold Habor, a hypothetical North&South Anna engagement, or some battle around Vicksburg/Atlanta?)
6. Improve AI path finding routines so it can handle long road trips better and doesn't stick to roads if that doesn't make it much faster. Also handling of bridges and river crossings (see Fredericksburg problems; no "swimming").
7. Path finding routines for messengers and generals should avoid the enemy a little better!
8. Artillery shouldn't just fire plainly for days, but AI should "employ" ART more selectively (for/during attacks, while being actually attacked etc.; I see AI often bombarding troops Seminary ridge without effect other than to waste ammo.)
9. Would be cool: Ability to reassign commanders and "reorganize" units -- including replacement of lost leaders from subordinates, maybe even with player's choice? Who had taken over Jackson's Corps if he fell at Antietam? Stuart? AP Hill? Or maybe Daniel Harvey? It would be nice if we could attach a brigade or division to a different units for a duration (like attaching Pickett to AP Hill on GB 3rd).

10. MOST IMPORTANTLY: A MORE POWERFUL, EXTENDED SCRIPTING LANGUAGE:
The main purpose of this is to make good, long time scenarios. AI is good to control it locally, and on the short timeframe. But strategic AI is not a Lee, or a Hooker. However, the scenario designer might allow for intricate movements and strategies, which AI could still nicely execute. But as mentioned by Wrangler, using timed events makes only sense in the beginning of a scenario, when the modder still knows the rough situation; later in the battle, who knows where the user send Sedgewick? But that might determine where and how the AI should use Pickett? So there is a big need for more "condition testing" scripting functions.
- If, then, else, While, switch, for, etc.
- More "Events/triggers", and possibility to set triggers "recurring, or single event": I'd for instance like to use the "introuble" trigger whenever a unit gets in trouble to switch to a defensive stand and not only do so just the first time (or even fancier, if I could make it a function that checks what "in trouble" exactly means: Is an attacker? Then fall back or retreat, or even cancel the attack of the unit it belongs to, etc.)
- possibility to define user functions ("Division_check_status_and_reform(*unit)")
- possibility to define variables for internal uses; Maybe a random() number generator.
- possibility to call game variables (strengths, losses, moral/fatigue values, present orders, stance, position(!), direction, formation, elevation, maybe even name of unit, type, no_of_subunits, has_been_routed_before etc. that work for regiments up to Armies, just average or summing up for the latter) and store them in user defined scripting variables.
- possibility to manipulate certain in-game variables, i.e. (re-)setting the strength, fatigue etc. of a unit.
- A way to manipulate Strategic AI. (If you guys are really ambitious, maybe advance it so I could come up with some more intricate strategies, like Division/Corps size flanking, concealed marching, simultaneous feints, etc; that may, however, be easier by some good scripting?).
- Easier randomization functions for weather, arrival times etc. With the scripting commands there are now, it is kind of lengthy to randomize arrival times (maybe a randomized "delay time" would be possible?).


Hmmh, a lengthy post, I admit. But I would be great to see some of that in a future War3D project... Particularly a more powerful scripting language would be heaven on earth. Fighting a full 5 days battle of Chancellorsville, leaving Early behind under AI control, and... Guess such a scenario may still be a couple of decades away. But if I think back of old SSI's Gettysburg or Chickamauga on C64, or Sid Meiers ..., or all the other "tries" that have come up and passed by since then, then I believe this has a huuuge potential...
Excellent work guys, keep it up! For god and the country, advance!
Jan

[Hancock the Superb]

That was very long. One thing I must say is divisions and corps never really used a formation when they went into battle. If they wanted a brigade here or there, they would do that.

[ironsight]

Holy crap Janh!
I think you just might have won the Longest Post Award!
And on your first post no less! Anyhow interesting stuff!
You just got an atta boy!

[122nd Ohio]

Yeah, long post, but some interesting ideas there. Especially having routed units stay on the map somewhere, so maybe you could go to them and rally them back. And entrenchments, say if troops are in a woods and idle for a while, they ought to be making some sort of breastworks to get a bit of a defensive advantage over an attacker.

[norb]

Good ideas, thanks for the input!

[Ephrum]

Janh's post touched on something I've been meaning to ask.

Could the AI in the new game be a little more aggressive in Open Play, when it's playing the role of attacker? In TC2M, when I'm playing a defend engagement, the enemy AI always attacks me piecemeal. And I've rarely seen it attempt a flanking manuver.

Now don't get me wrong, the AI in TC2M isn't stupid. I know when I'm playing defend, the enemy AI commander(on either side), always figures out where the weak point in my defensive lines are. And it generaly focuses it's attack at that point. But the attacks are still piecemeal.

In the Corps Tutorial of TC2M, Longstreets Corps gives the most aggressive attack I've seen yet, save senarios'. If you watch his attack develope on the mini-map, it's a fast, wide, sweeping frontal assault. And a lot of fun!

I understand that the enemy AI in the Tutorials, and the Senarios' are scripted to attack the way they do. But it could add to the fun if the AI was as aggressive like that in Open Play, on it's own.

Or is some of what I'm experiencing, due to having only the minimal system requirements, for the game, with my PC?

[Hancock the Superb]

Correct. I notice that too.

[norb]

AI is going to depend on the testers. They have to get a saved game before the AI makes a decision, then show me the decision and show me what they would do differently.

[Chamberlain]

Hello Janh

You do have some very good ideas !!!

I really like the building of entrenchments, now that would be really cool B) !!!

Chamberlain

[Hancock the Superb]

That is also a good idea.