Can we get a scenario list?

[JAMiAM]

Chelco,

Very briefly, a scenario designer must define the objective track, order emhasis and strategic bias for each formation, to be considered to have a rudimentary "Programmed Opponent". They also have various other tools to fine-tune the PO, including multiple-objective tracks, switchable by events, "trip wire" assignment of hex control changes, to initiate reserve activations, further events strings, changes in order emphasis, biases, et cetera.

The first thing that any scenario designer needs to master though, is how to play the game with a fair degree of competence. This level of competence is a primary factor in any scenario design work, and most all scenarios greatly reflect this, oft-overlooked fact.

[JMS2]

There's a very short tutorial on the manual IIRC. If you want more, please visit TDG ( http://www.tdg.nu ) specially the forum, as there somebody will answer sooner or later.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Thanks Fidel,
That explains why the computer opponent is ussually better attacking than defending (another thing I read).
Are there any scenario creation tutorial?
Your help is appreciated,

I don't know of any tutorials, but the TDG website is specifically devoted to scenario design(check the link in my sig). Feel free to register and start a thread or threads, even if your questions are elementary. There are plenty of people who will be more than willing to help you.

I wouldn't necessarily say that the PO is universally better on the attack than on the defense. It can handle a relatively static defense quite well. However, mobile defense is probably where it is at its weakest. That's not just because of intrinsic PO weaknesses, but also because that sort of defense is the most difficult to program.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I wouldn't necessarily say that the PO is universally better on the attack than on the defense. It can handle a relatively static defense quite well. However, mobile defense is probably where it is at its weakest. That's not just because of intrinsic PO weaknesses, but also because that sort of defense is the most difficult to program.

Grant, I think you'll find that has changed, in TOAW III. Your comments might be valid for CoW, but not for TOAW III. It now actually fights a better mobile defense than it does a static defense.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

James, Jose and Fidel, thanks for the responses.

So let me get the basics straight:
1) the hard-coded computer opponent (the one that is compiled deep with the source code) has certain behaviors which are quite basic. Sortof low level tactical doctrine for each unit.
2) The high level, operational orders come from the scenario designer.

If that's true, how a designer can manage to create reasonable reactions for the gazillion possible moves of a human player?

I'm heading towards tdg now.

Thanks,

[JMS2]

This one is, and it's rather good on the attack, in fact, right now is doing better than I!

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

I wouldn't necessarily say that the PO is universally better on the attack than on the defense. It can handle a relatively static defense quite well. However, mobile defense is probably where it is at its weakest. That's not just because of intrinsic PO weaknesses, but also because that sort of defense is the most difficult to program.

Grant, I think you'll find that has changed, in TOAW III. Your comments might be valid for CoW, but not for TOAW III. It now actually fights a better mobile defense than it does a static defense.

Get back to me on how I can get my copy, then. [:D]

In all seriousness, can you expound a bit? I'm perfectly willing to accept that the PO may have improved from the old one on mobile defense, but static defense is such an inherently simpler situation that it's hard to believe that the PO can fight a fluid battle with a greater degree of skill.

[JMS2]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

James, Jose and Fidel, thanks for the responses.

So let me get the basics straight:
1) the hard-coded computer opponent (the one that is compiled deep with the source code) has certain behaviors which are quite basic. Sortof low level tactical doctrine for each unit.
2) The high level, operational orders come from the scenario designer.

If that's true, how a designer can manage to create reasonable reactions for the gazillion possible moves of a human player?

I'm heading towards tdg now.

Thanks,

1) Yep, but with some flexibility
2) Yep too, much depends on the designer willingness to endure the programming on top of map design, oob research, etc, but it's quite rewarding.

Better start small and then move to larger scenarios than shoot for the German-Soviet War from day one.

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

James, Jose and Fidel, thanks for the responses.

So let me get the basics straight:
1) the hard-coded computer opponent (the one that is compiled deep with the source code) has certain behaviors which are quite basic. Sortof low level tactical doctrine for each unit.

Things like that are subsumed into the unit ratings. If you have a battalion level scenario and Force A has better small unit tactics than Force B, that's going to be reflected in the unit proficiency, for example.

2) The high level, operational orders come from the scenario designer.

If that's true, how a designer can manage to create reasonable reactions for the gazillion possible moves of a human player?

1. Pretty much. The PO won't do anything it isn't told to do. That includes moving units, entrenching, etc.

2. The short answer is that you can't. You try and come as close as you can using the limitations of the system. You set objectives for each formation and the PO sets about capturing or protecting these objectives as best it can. There is also a strategic bias setting which affects how the PO acts in general- you can make it more aggressive, more cautious, etc. One neat touch that TOAW has is multiple objective paths. I designed a scenario which featured an amphibious landing; I programmed the PO to mimic human decision making by randomizing the landing to occur at one of three different sites.



I'm heading towards tdg now.

Thanks,



[/quote]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Chelco
1) the hard-coded computer opponent (the one that is compiled deep with the source code) has certain behaviors which are quite basic. Sortof low level tactical doctrine for each unit.

More technically, it is tactical doctrine for each formation (of units).

ORIGINAL: Chelco
If that's true, how a designer can manage to create reasonable reactions for the gazillion possible moves of a human player?

By first being able to anticipate how they might play out a (gazillion/2) of them...[;)]

You can set up some formations to act as reserves, by giving them the proper orders emphasis, and setting a web of trip wire objective points. You can ensure adequate concentration of force on the offensive by setting the proper order emphasis, strategic bias, and density of formational objective tracks through defined paths of advance, cancelling and switching objective tracks if an advance does not meet with a predefined time-table. There are scores of techniques to get the PO to do what it should do, based on anticipated human counter-moves. It just takes a LOT of work to do it well.

[sabre100]

Sorry I am a bit confused can somebody clarify for me? Are **ALL* the scenarios that were in COW version included in TAOW3? Are were only the best ones included and some removed?


thanks

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: sabre100

Sorry I am a bit confused can somebody clarify for me? Are **ALL* the scenarios that were in COW version included in TAOW3? Are were only the best ones included and some removed?

All the ones from the original COW disk are included in this release.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: watchtower

You bet. Although if the scenario is unavailable we might have to settle for 'Mental Metal Chicken Invasion 2010'.

There's the Willy Wonka scenario. I don't think it's included with TOAW III though...

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: Chelco

James, Jose and Fidel, thanks for the responses.

So let me get the basics straight:
1) the hard-coded computer opponent (the one that is compiled deep with the source code) has certain behaviors which are quite basic. Sortof low level tactical doctrine for each unit.

Things like that are subsumed into the unit ratings. If you have a battalion level scenario and Force A has better small unit tactics than Force B, that's going to be reflected in the unit proficiency, for example.

2) The high level, operational orders come from the scenario designer.

If that's true, how a designer can manage to create reasonable reactions for the gazillion possible moves of a human player?

1. Pretty much. The PO won't do anything it isn't told to do. That includes moving units, entrenching, etc.

2. The short answer is that you can't. You try and come as close as you can using the limitations of the system. You set objectives for each formation and the PO sets about capturing or protecting these objectives as best it can. There is also a strategic bias setting which affects how the PO acts in general- you can make it more aggressive, more cautious, etc. One neat touch that TOAW has is multiple objective paths. I designed a scenario which featured an amphibious landing; I programmed the PO to mimic human decision making by randomizing the landing to occur at one of three different sites.



I'm heading towards tdg now.

Thanks,

[/quote]
About that 'the PO won't do anything you don't tell it to' comment...

I've re-posted a 'care and feeding of 'Elmer' on TDG. I'd posted it on SZO quite a while back, so I thought that I'd bring it back up to the front. There's some dicussion on SZO you might want to read. All of it was theoretical at that time.

He's actually pretty bright within his limits. You don't have to tell him exactly where to move, he will move up and back along the objective track as needed, he'll also attempt to get back into supply. He'll pull bak sometimes if outnumbered.

I'm pretty sure that he digs in now, under certain stances too.<g> He also decides what loss tolerance setting to make.

He'll also send out the occasional scout looking to get around your flank.

When I rework the AI, I'm going to have to add a Slave..Bounty slider.[:-]

[Fidel_Helms]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
About that 'the PO won't do anything you don't tell it to' comment...

I meant that without objectives, the PO will do nothing. Thanks for the article though, I just saw it. Good stuff. I don't follow SZO so it is appreciated.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Fidel_Helms

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
About that 'the PO won't do anything you don't tell it to' comment...

I meant that without objectives, the PO will do nothing. Thanks for the article though, I just saw it. Good stuff. I don't follow SZO so it is appreciated.

I know, I just felt it might be misinterpreted. You do have to give it basic orders, but they're really at the formation level only. We'll find out, but I think that with even basic orders, it should now work a lot better.

[Chuck2]

Is it better for Elmo to use large formations with many units or smaller formations with only a few?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Is it better for Elmo to use large formations with many units or smaller formations with only a few?

Generally, it is better to have more smaller formations, than fewer large formations

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Is it better for Elmo to use large formations with many units or smaller formations with only a few?

Generally, it is better to have more smaller formations, than fewer large formations

I'd disagree a little bit here. Elmer's formations don't cooperate as well as they should. If you split them too much, they're going to lose cohesion. If they're too big, they may concentrate too much and not be able to cover the front.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Is it better for Elmo to use large formations with many units or smaller formations with only a few?

Generally, it is better to have more smaller formations, than fewer large formations

I'd disagree a little bit here. Elmer's formations don't cooperate as well as they should. If you split them too much, they're going to lose cohesion. If they're too big, they may concentrate too much and not be able to cover the front.

However, if you have more smaller formations, you have more flexibility in assigning different objective tracks, and mixing order emphases, and biases. I think that you'll find three ten unit formations moving in parallel objective tracks with 2-3 hexes intervening hexes between the axes of advance, performing a lot better than a single 30 unit formation moving along a single objective track.