Matrix Games Forums

I took a quick look at the scenario editor today to see what it could do. In particular, I was interested to compare it with SC/DW and CAW/CCAW.

It seems that for the most part the scenario editor is pretty much similar to the basic functionality in the game engine itself and that scenarios are just predefined groups and missions with scoring conditions attached.

So, there is no way to provide for random groups or placements in scenarios?

So, there is no way to provide for random behavior in scenarios?

So, there is no way to provide for triggering events in scenarios?

Are the above pretty much correct? Thanks.

Random start locations should be possible, and several of the scenarios on Harpoon HQ include triggered events. It largely depends upon what you mean by that though.

Mark

Although the software is ancient there is more possible than you think:

1. You can create random start point for all units. Many scens, such as Dawn Patrol and Matrix Siege (ANW, PlayersDB) use random starting positions to create a scen that has been played dozens of times in Multiplayer mode for example. While all units created will be used in the scen, through random start points you can randomly have units (e.g. SAMs) in a critical location or in an unimportant place in the scen

2. All missions can be time triggered; i.e. only kick in after a certain time. Before that time the mission can execute a plotted mission and even a 'second' mission (but this is tricky and limited).

3. the missions can generate 'random' behaviour; by using multiple refpoints combined with the right mission (e.g. transit) groups can travel to a 'random point'.

4. Through the smart use of nav-zones you can also create off-axis attacks.
In 'Western Approached (H3, PlayersDB)' I used three random starting points for a small convoy, combined with three target points to generate 9 paths for the convoy, then put in nav zones to give those 9 paths unpredictable courses and multiple course changes.

5. Another way of creating off-axis attacks is through having planes located on 'invisible' land bases (a standard SE function). Atlantic and Pacific Recon (H3, PlayersDB) use this extensively.

Unfortunately there are too few designers that use all of the above, and many more 'tricks' which is why many scens are so easy and predictable. There is definitely room for another enthausiastic designer....

Freek

Freek,

Well, I am not really a scenario designer. Mainly I am a game player. Occassionally, I have used scenario editors to set up simple practice exercises for me for a particular game.

However, I am fascinated by game system design and my profession is computer systems design.

So, the other day, I got interested to compared the scenario editors found in three somewhat similar games: Harpoon 3, Carriers at War (original DOS and 2007 Windows rewrite), and Sub Command/Dangerous Waters.

Here were some of my comments I posted in the Matrix CAW forum. Of course, as you have pointed out, despite clicking around the H3 Scenario Editor, I probably missed some of the less obvious techniques that are available to veteran designers to spice up a scenario. Thanks for your time to make note of them for me!

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I spent some time looking at the Scenario Designer in Harpoon ANW (3.8.0) this afternoon. I would say that the scenario design capability in CAW/CCAW surpasses Harpoon in terms of ability to have random placement, random forces, and complex triggered conditional behavior. Harpoon can define missions similar to CAW/CCAW, but with no ability to trigger and branch. My guess is that the scenarios have less replayability. On the other hand, it is like Combat Missions, there are hundreds and hundreds of scenarios.

I think SC/DW is a lot more powerful than both Harpoon and CAW when it comes to scenario design. Facilities for randomness, conditional logic, and generalized programming logic is quite a bit more powerful. However, there is one place where Harpoon probably out performs SC/DW in terms of scenario design and that is the battle group (task group/task force). In Harpoon, the AI seems to do a very nice job coordinating the actions of a group of ships in an intelligent fashion. In SC/DW, groups of ships behave too much as collections of separate entities without a common purpose.

---

I don't think you can compare RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB or what we call PG's AA engine to any of the above games. The terrain analysis, objective analysis, force formation, and plan construction process is so completely different than naval combat, I don't think that there are any useful insights which can be drawn by comparing them.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

There is one place where I think Sonalyst showed true genious in building their engine. The behavior for AI units such as playable/non-playable platforms and weapons are described in what are known as doctrine files. These are plain text files. However, they are not simply spreadsheet of parameters. It is actually an interperted programming language that controls how a sub prosecutes a contact or how a sub evades a torpedo etc... Effectively, moders can change many of the core behaviors of the game; more so than in most moddable games.

For example, in the standard SC. The AI torpedo evasion is simply to extend away from the LOB of the shooter (and launch CMs). Unless the torpedo runs out of fuel, this approach isn't very effective. In SCXIIC, the most popular mod, evasion was modified to make subs extend and displace laterally after dropping CMs. This has a much higher percentage, since the it causes the target to move outside the seeker cone of the weapon.

There is no way in CAW or Harpoon that platform behavior by the AI can be changed. However, I do think in CAW, you can do some prioritization of targets for the AI. That's about it.