Some Thoughts About Scripted Behavior

[Taiaha]

I know there have been a couple of threads looking at some issues with scripted behavior in the scenarios, but as they have been scenario-specific I was thinking there might be some value in philosophizing more generally about scripting. After all, if Norb and the team are thinking about future expansions, then because of the modding capacity of this game, the value of those expansions is going to be heavily dependent upon the map qualities and the quality of the shipped scenarios.

Let me say at the outset that the overall quality of the scenarios is great. As many of the posts requesting help will attest (including my own) the challenge level is pretty high, they are immersive, and the randomized AI provides a lot of variety. And I think scripted behavior and events can provide a really interesting level of challenge when used for the AI in a particular scenario. However, I am not a big fan of scripted events associated with the forces you are supposed to control.

One thing I really like about this game is that Norb and the team have a very clear idea about the kind of game they are building, which they describe in the manual as a "Real-Time Command Simulation." In other words, they are focusing on building a command experience that is as realistic as possible (with all its confusions, excitements, misleading opportunities, peril turning into opportunity, etc.). Scripting the behavior of the player's forces, however, can run counter to that.

Consider the much discussed behavior of Devin's men in the McPherson's ridge scenario. The designer has, quite sensibly, pointed out that they behave the way they do in that scenario because that is what they did on the day: withdrawing to the North to cover enemy contact.

As a player, however, I don't care about that. One of the big attractions of this kind of game is the chance to re-write history. Otherwise I would go and watch a movie of these events, or just sit back and watch the computer play the entire thing out. If you, as the designer, want to create a particular set of historical conditions which involve not giving me control over certain forces, then don't give them to me to command in the first place! This is sending really mixed messages to a player: you have control of these forces. . .but not really. A much better option in the McPherson's Ridge scenario would have been to have the player take command at the point where Devin's forces are in the process of withdrawing but the player doesn't have control. This would recreate the historical situation and also give you a sense of how precarious the whole state is. Then, when Devin has completed his withdrawal, you would receive a courier advising you of that fact and then indicating that reports of enemy contact proved to be incorrect and his forces are now at your disposal. At which point you take command. This removes all that initial ambiguity and gives you a bit of extra flavor.

The other thing that scripting a player's forces can lead to is a potentially immersion-killing lack of realism. Case in point: Heth's men assaulting the McPherson's farm. The way this seems to be set up is that Archer is always going to be captured at a certain point. Quite sensible, you might say, because he was captured in reality. Now, again, as a player, I don't care about that. Part of my attraction here is to re-write history, to fight on a day when Archer isn't captured and is able to take part in the rest of the battle. But let that go for a second. What this "inevitable capture" script leads to is some really odd moments. Last night for example, I cleared the farm pretty quickly, and managed to get Archer's men re-formed into a nice defensive line along the Western edge of the farm extending into the woods, while I brought up the last of Davis's men. The Iron Brigade is approaching, but we are not yet engaged. Archer is currently deployed at the extreme left of the line. . .and suddenly I get the message that he has been captured. What? By a couple of union troops cunningly disguised as cows? Come on!

So again, scripted events can be really useful for lending a degree of unpredictability to your enemy or to the behavior of allied forces that you don't control. But such events should be exceptionally rare, or eliminated altogether for forces that a player is given to command.

[MrSpkr]

Taiaha wrote:

The other thing that scripting a player's forces can lead to is a potentially immersion-killing lack of realism. Case in point: Heth's men assaulting the McPherson's farm. The way this seems to be set up is that Archer is always going to be captured at a certain point. Quite sensible, you might say, because he was captured in reality. Now, again, as a player, I don't care about that. Part of my attraction here is to re-write history, to fight on a day when Archer isn't captured and is able to take part in the rest of the battle. But let that go for a second. What this "inevitable capture" script leads to is some really odd moments. Last night for example, I cleared the farm pretty quickly, and managed to get Archer's men re-formed into a nice defensive line along the Western edge of the farm extending into the woods, while I brought up the last of Davis's men. The Iron Brigade is approaching, but we are not yet engaged. Archer is currently deployed at the extreme left of the line. . .and suddenly I get the message that he has been captured. What? By a couple of union troops cunningly disguised as cows? Come on!

I agree. I love the Heth scenario, but despise that Archer can get captured "in woods crawling with Federal troops" in situations where the Iron brigade is 200 yards from the woods and Archer himself is on the other side of the railroad cut from the woods, anyway. The same goes for the untimely death of Reynolds in the same scenario.

Steve

[Los]

Attachments and detachments are part of the things that commanders have to deal with. However the issue is that in this scenario the player, who normally would be working off an order even verbal would have known ahead of time that this was going to happen, hence, the lack of this little tidbit in the scenario pre-brief? If one is going to add things like this into a mission the commander should know, as it would have been worked out ahead of time.

Los