Matrix Games Forums

I find fine dazkaz15 idea [:)]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

If someone makes them there will be.....

Like it or not I guess 90% of players have never made a map. They are not "guilty", are they? Some guys love to make maps, other people hate it. Basically all of them are customers who pay to enjoy a game. To my mind random maps are not against common scenarios, they can live together. The more people enjoy the game the most succesful will be.

Guilty? Who said that? Just adding my preference, like everyone else. Development of this game is restricted by the very limited resources - that's why people are expressing preferences - because for Dave to implement that means he won't have time to do something else. Be nice to have everything, of course - including random maps - to keep everyone happy. But if it's a choice between spending time over the next 2 years working on random maps OR working on the EF game, LOTB, KOAD (or even, for that matter, finessing the functionality of the present engine via the beta process we're enjoying now) not to mention getting out the COTA pack, then I vote for leaving the random maps for another half decade. Just my opinion, to add to the others in this little friendly discussion.

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.

Yes, I like the idea Dave [;)]

The objective idea is a good one. Like the sound of that. Random order of battle though..hmm balancing issues may arise there..how about the player can pick his OOB and the AI picks theirs. Say a point based system like Combat mission or let the player pick the AI's aswell if they want.

Tigers Unleashed has a set up version of their scenarios..where you can add\delete change the OOB for the scenario (aswell as more game specific things like weather AI aggression etc)

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.

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.

Sounds great. Really like the idea. People could then just make maps a use them solely for this quick battle system. They wouldn't really need to do OOB's and all that side of things..just make the map and say it's for the "QB generator".

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.

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: 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]

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).

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).

Roger that! 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).

Roger that! 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.
[/quote]

Roger that! [:)]

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.
In BftB it's choosing a map, setting up objectives, writing victory conditions, choosing forces by creating units and dragging and dropping entities into them, etc.
So, while in AB, I can casually play new scenarios, in BftB it requires a significant amount of work.
While IMO random maps and random units selection would be an overkill and additional scenario creation mode that automatizes a part of the scenario creation process would be welcome. 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.
Another nice thing would be an ability to change Estab file in a pre-existing scenario.

Advanced Tactics Gold has an excellent random map generator. There are plenty of options to get literally the map you wish. To make any scenario it is only required one minute and a few clicks. As you can imagine the replayability is infinite.

Features:

1-World size (From small to unplayably large)
2-Players (1-14)
3-World type (% of land and sea)
4-Options: Map loop; Mirrorish; Shroud; one town start; Costly research; Stone age; hidden stats; allied AI; Use resources; No roads; Wild land; Depleted land; Deserted lands; Mods (players are allowed to use their mods)
5-Weather: No climate; Full range; Artic-temperate; Subtropic-Tropic; Temperate
6-Extra settings: Continental size; Humidity (% rivers & mountains); Geological Age (% woods).
7-Extra options: Limited initial roads; Natural coastlines; No farmlands; Higher production cost; No suburbs
8-You can use the editor to make additional adjustments.

Personally, I would prefer Dave not working so hard![;)]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Personally, I would prefer Dave not working so hard![;)]

Ah, but then you'd lose your fan club [;)]

Take a break, Dave, for Easter. And have a good Easter!

Peturabo - isn't this - for example ability to deploy a whole battalion or larger force by just deploying the HQ - just what happens in the scenmaker by default?

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.

So what you in AB you don't have objectives - it's just a free for all?

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.

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.

Another nice thing would be an ability to change Estab file in a pre-existing scenario.

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.