Any changes to the event editor?

[Szilard]

Like a real scripting system or something else reasonably sane?

[sPzAbt653]

Its always nice to throw out suggestions to see what might stick while things are being worked on. 'Something reasonably sane' is a little obscure. What is a 'real scripting system' ?

[shunwick]

The event editor could certainly use some love. Creating loops, to use just one example, is currently a nightmare.

Best wishes,
Steve

[sPzAbt653]

I think that Curt's Loop explanations in the Evil Ed document have helped me get them done, but maybe I haven't done any that are too complicated. Do you have any suggestions for how to make Loops easier to implement ?

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Its always nice to throw out suggestions to see what might stick while things are being worked on. 'Something reasonably sane' is a little obscure. What is a 'real scripting system' ?

I guess in overall terms: IF/THEN and loop constructs, with the ability to query/set properties of objects and support for some simple data structures to work with. You can do a little bit of this with the event editor, but it's a kludgy pain to work with & very limited.

Mainly what I would like is something rich enough to allow scripting custom PO behavior beyond what we have at the moment. This isn't very complex from a conceptual or implementation point of view if you were going to include it from the start, but I imagine retrofitting it into the current code base probably would be. But never know until you ask!

[sPzAbt653]

IF/THEN and loop constructs, with the ability to query/set properties of objects and support for some simple data structures to work with. You can do a little bit of this with the event editor, but it's a kludgy pain to work with & very limited.

I can disagree that any of this is very limited, you might posit that something cannot be done, I might counter that there are limitations to any system. I would agree that all of us would like a better structure to work with, but how about an example other than what is our minds ? What I'm saying is, It may be awful, but its the best awful that we have.

... scripting custom PO behavior beyond what we have at the moment.

There you go with the 'scripting' word again, lol. [Sorry, I don't get it]. But the PO is set by the Scenario Designer, you know.

[Szilard]

What I'm mainly interested in is tinkering around with my own scenarios and seeing if I can get the AI to do a half-way decent job. I certainly don't expect the devs to leap into action to satisfy my desires but like I say, until you ask ...

[76mm]

I'd say at the very least being able to work with drop-down boxes instead of cycling through each selection and being able to see more than three events at a time in a row would be very helpful.

Further, being able to filter events by each of the fields would also be helpful, as would an easier way to print out the whole event chain (IIRC there is a way to do this, but the formatting or something was not helpful).

[Curtis Lemay]

You can edit the events via an xml editor:

[Lobster]

The event editor is a dinosaur. No two ways about it. Someone needs to bring it (drag it) into the 21st century. [;)]

[sPzAbt653]

What I'm mainly interested in is tinkering around with my own scenarios and seeing if I can get the AI to do a half-way decent job.

It's my opinion that we can do better than half-way decent, but it takes time. Think about the amount of effort it takes to put together a scenario - a map, an oob, events, calendar, environment, briefings, replacements, force parameters ... all typically designed from the viewpoint of one human player for each side, and all done for most scenarios by one individual. Now add in the PO - force and formation proficiency, strategic bias, formation orders, objectives ... all of these done from a computer player perspective and for both sides. The task is monumental and complex.

I don't have any computer experience but I imagine that the chess programs took years to develop. So is it fair to expect that TOAW's PO can be made easy to work with ? No way. However, the PO is not 'unobtainium'. The part that is coded is definitely better than half-way decent, what's left to the designer generally consumes more time than most can dedicate to the project once everything else has been completed.

I see you have been here way longer than I have, but I will humbly offer my assistance with the PO in anything you are working on. I certainly don't know everything, but I think I have to some extent been successful in designing scenarios that pose a challenge to the solitaire player.

[larryfulkerson]

I think I have to some extent been successful in designing scenarios that pose a challenge to the solitaire player.

I concur. +1

[secadegas]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

I think I have to some extent been successful in designing scenarios that pose a challenge to the solitaire player.

I concur. +1

+2

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653


It's my opinion that we can do better than half-way decent, but it takes time. Think about the amount of effort it takes to put together a scenario - a map, an oob, events, calendar, environment, briefings, replacements, force parameters ... all typically designed from the viewpoint of one human player for each side, and all done for most scenarios by one individual. Now add in the PO - force and formation proficiency, strategic bias, formation orders, objectives ... all of these done from a computer player perspective and for both sides. The task is monumental and complex.

I don't have any computer experience but I imagine that the chess programs took years to develop. So is it fair to expect that TOAW's PO can be made easy to work with ? No way. However, the PO is not 'unobtainium'. The part that is coded is definitely better than half-way decent, what's left to the designer generally consumes more time than most can dedicate to the project once everything else has been completed.

I see you have been here way longer than I have, but I will humbly offer my assistance with the PO in anything you are working on. I certainly don't know everything, but I think I have to some extent been successful in designing scenarios that pose a challenge to the solitaire player.

Thanks! I might take advantage of yr kind offer, once TOAW IV is out.

[sPzAbt653]

work with drop-down boxes instead of cycling through each selection

Yeah, those one-click boxes are @#&!, grr.

an easier way to print out the whole event chain

Run the Scenario Dump and you get that. That helps, in conjunction with some type of word document that the designer creates that will log in all the events, along with appropriate notes concerning what is going on [or what the intention is]. The Editor itself is best used for inputting the parameters while the Dump and a Doc are the best way to view and troubleshoot the Event list. My opinion.

Thanks for the +1 and +2 guys, much appreciated.

[Lobster]

Let's see if I understand. The vast majority of you think the event engine is fine and doesn't need to be remade, right? Because most of what I see are people posting about how to make a blind dog jump through a hoop instead of getting a dog that can see.

[larryfulkerson]

Run the Scenario Dump and you get that. That helps, in conjunction with some type of word document that the designer creates that will log in all the events, along with appropriate notes concerning what is going on [or what the intention is]. The Editor itself is best used for inputting the parameters while the Dump and a Doc are the best way to view and troubleshoot the Event list. My opinion.

I can understand what you're saying here about using external tools ( Microsoft Excell, a scenario dump, etc. ) but all this strikes me
as being a necessary workaround. What would be ideal is a full-screen event editor that would give us the same tools that you're
using all in one place. A listing of the events with their properties like the dump gives that can be sorted in various orders and you can
change them easily and quickly and some sort of AI tool that can find the events that have lost their proper link to other events and
things like that. You're doing an outstanding job the way it is and everything but there's a lot of us that aren't used to working that way
and crave a better editor. I'm thinking of a novice player new to the editor.

[larryfulkerson]

Edit: posted to the wrong forum dudes, sorry.

[Rasputitsa]

Attempting to modify events in an existing scenario using the in-game editor, changed some existing event parameters to do with shock effects. On starting the modified scenario, get a message 'using the wrong .eqp file'.[&:]

On screen the units are now of the wrong scale, regiment size instead of corps and division in the original scenario.

What went wrong ?

[Lobster]

I have gotten that message even when using the correct equipment file. I use a little gimmick to check that I am using the correct equipment file when working with a scenario. The people playing the scenario can also check to see if they are using the correct equipment file. Just take one of the Spare slots and put something in it that obviously does not belong. You could even name the piece of equipment CHECK. Then when you start the scenario in the editor or as a player and it gives you that message you simply look at the replacement list. If CHECK is there you are doing fine. If not, something is definitely wrong. You could even name the piece of equipment after the scenario.

BTW, that message needs to be modified so it gives you the name of the equipment file that is being loaded. Instead of the cryptic, 'using the wrong eqp file', it should say something like, 'using eqp file <NAME OF SCENARIO>'.