Moderators: Panther Paul, Arjuna
ORIGINAL: phoenix
If someone makes them there will be.....
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Random map generation with our map structures and hi fidelity terrain grid would be a real challenge. However a more feasible option would be to select a map from one of the existing set of maps and then create a random set of objectives and choose a random order of battle for each side. that would be more do-able.
ain grid would be a real challenge. However a more feasible option would be to select a map from one of the existing set of maps and then create a random set of objectives and choose a random order of battle for each side. that would be more do-able.
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Yeh I was thinking along the lines of the users selecting the type of game they would like to play - eg battle of the bases, capture the flag, major offensive on wide or narrow front, meeting engagement. Then they could select how big a force to have - eg Bde Gp, Div Gp, Corps. The relative ratio of forces between the sides would be tied to the type of game - eg for a meeting engagement they would be 1:1 ratio but for a major offensive it may be 2:1 attacker v defender. Next they would select an arrival schedule in terms of what percentage of their force would arrive where and when. From this info the AI could troll through various force lists and build an OB for the game. With more effort we could provide an interface for the players to select their own OB.
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Yeh I was thinking along the lines of the users selecting the type of game they would like to play - eg battle of the bases, capture the flag, major offensive on wide or narrow front, meeting engagement. Then they could select how big a force to have - eg Bde Gp, Div Gp, Corps. The relative ratio of forces between the sides would be tied to the type of game - eg for a meeting engagement they would be 1:1 ratio but for a major offensive it may be 2:1 attacker v defender. Next they would select an arrival schedule in terms of what percentage of their force would arrive where and when. From this info the AI could troll through various force lists and build an OB for the game. With more effort we could provide an interface for the players to select their own OB.
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Yeh I was thinking along the lines of the users selecting the type of game they would like to play - eg battle of the bases, capture the flag, major offensive on wide or narrow front, meeting engagement. Then they could select how big a force to have - eg Bde Gp, Div Gp, Corps. The relative ratio of forces between the sides would be tied to the type of game - eg for a meeting engagement they would be 1:1 ratio but for a major offensive it may be 2:1 attacker v defender. Next they would select an arrival schedule in terms of what percentage of their force would arrive where and when. From this info the AI could troll through various force lists and build an OB for the game. With more effort we could provide an interface for the players to select their own OB.
The concept isn't very different from Steel Panthers' battle generator.
However, Steel Panthers has significantly fewer parameters to consider for random battle generation considering the richness offered in weapons / equipment / ammunition attributes, force composition, battlefield command and control, logistics, and terrain effects nuances when compared to Command Ops.
ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Yeh I was thinking along the lines of the users selecting the type of game they would like to play - eg battle of the bases, capture the flag, major offensive on wide or narrow front, meeting engagement. Then they could select how big a force to have - eg Bde Gp, Div Gp, Corps. The relative ratio of forces between the sides would be tied to the type of game - eg for a meeting engagement they would be 1:1 ratio but for a major offensive it may be 2:1 attacker v defender. Next they would select an arrival schedule in terms of what percentage of their force would arrive where and when. From this info the AI could troll through various force lists and build an OB for the game. With more effort we could provide an interface for the players to select their own OB.
The concept isn't very different from Steel Panthers' battle generator.
However, Steel Panthers has significantly fewer parameters to consider for random battle generation considering the richness offered in weapons / equipment / ammunition attributes, force composition, battlefield command and control, logistics, and terrain effects nuances when compared to Command Ops.
Need to divide between Matrix SPWAW and Camo Workshop SP2WW2. SPWAW auto generated maps and battles are terrible, while at least in SP2WW2 auto map generation got to a really advanced and useful state. [8D]
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah
The concept isn't very different from Steel Panthers' battle generator.
However, Steel Panthers has significantly fewer parameters to consider for random battle generation considering the richness offered in weapons / equipment / ammunition attributes, force composition, battlefield command and control, logistics, and terrain effects nuances when compared to Command Ops.
Need to divide between Matrix SPWAW and Camo Workshop SP2WW2. SPWAW auto generated maps and battles are terrible, while at least in SP2WW2 auto map generation got to a really advanced and useful state. [8D]
I was only speaking to the concept of auto-generating types of engagements, not the results.
Moved on from SPWAW / SP2WW2 and SPMBT long ago because my interests were aimed more at force on force issues from those engagements and the logistics that affected them (as a minimum resupply issues / supply lines in a longer term battle).
From my experience that´s an ongoing issue. Currently don´t know of any wargames that give either good auto generated force compositions, nor random maps and appropiately set up tasks. CMX1 quick battles failed at it (IMHO), as well as does SP. It´s likely a science on its own to get that working and personally I´d prefer Dave working on other things.ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
. . .
I was only speaking to the concept of auto-generating types of engagements, not the results.
Moved on from SPWAW / SP2WW2 and SPMBT long ago because my interests were aimed more at force on force issues from those engagements and the logistics that affected them (as a minimum resupply issues / supply lines in a longer term battle).
From my experience that´s an ongoing issue. Currently don´t know of any wargames that give either good auto generated force compositions, nor random maps and appropiately set up tasks. CMX1 quick battles failed at it (IMHO), as well as does SP. It´s likely a science on its own to get that working and personally I´d prefer Dave working on other things.ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Personally, I would prefer Dave not working so hard![;)]
So what you in AB you don't have objectives - it's just a free for all?ORIGINAL: Perturabo
One thing that makes me prefer playing Armored Brigade over BftB is how long it takes to create a scenario in the latter.
In AB it's just a question of choosing a map fragment to play on and selecting forces by clicking on them.
Well you can do just that by using the reinforcement schedules. Just drag your Bn HQ to the reinf schedule. Then drag it on to the map where you want it to arrive and set the time to scenario start. Hey presto the whole Bn arrives at that location. Too easy.One thing that would be great would be automatic set up of subordinate forces (for example ability to deploy a whole battalion or larger force by just deploying the HQ) and objective and victory condition templates.
Yes I agree it would be nice. In fact we conducted some experiments with that recently. It gets a bit tricky handling duplicate IDs and near duplicate units. But it is something we are working on in between other things as time permits.Another nice thing would be an ability to change Estab file in a pre-existing scenario.
