Stubborn AI Continuously Overrides my Orders

[jam3]

The point here is not that
a) You should watch the ai control everything to recreate history

or

b) A scenario deisgner feels there should be a script to control units to make a scenario more realistic.

Thats simply not the issue. The issue is if a scenario designer does use a script then imho that unit should not be under the control of the player at all. The player can obviously be in control of other units but the buttons for the commanders controlled by the script should be courier only just like all other non controlled units. Thats the entire problem here. Not only is it confusing and frustrating its almost impossible to troubleshoot, is it the player input or the script causing x problem to happen? In GB04 its not just the lack of control its the moments you do have control not even working correctly. Also the decision of a script shouldn't affect your score, nor should your ability to game the script by fighting with the AI.

Thats why this is a bad design not because you should always be able to alter history but because you just can't give control of units to the ai, a script, and the player, all at the same time. And at the very least if your going to attempt something like that you need to make the player completly aware of whats going on cause alot of people will think something is broken; "I hit x and x doesn't happen its broken", is not an unreasonable assumption.

[RDBoles]

It seems to me if you are going to be a great battlefield commander you better learn real quick how to adapt to unscripted behavior. For that matter even scripted behavior.I think that is what made LEE such a great commander. He was always tweeking the leadership in the Army of Northern Virginia. During the Seven Days Campaign He must have went bananas at all the failed understanding and failure to follow orders. Of course he ran out of great leaders near the end of the war. The developers to this game are a cross between histoians and programers what a combo. I like the frustration and the unpredictabilty. Bugs or no bugs its a great game the way it is.

[GShock]

There's a difference between the ascertained problems with strategic orders and scripted behavior of AI units.

Make sure sure of what case this belongs to, scenario after scenario.

[MarkT]

Wonderful......
Exceptional reading.
The scenario is playing EXACTLY as it was intended.
I placed you in General Rodes shoes. To share his frustration AND to get it done!
1. He was ordered to attack the Federal right Flank (at McPherson's Farm)
2. He was told to withhold Doles Brigade.
3. O'Neal launched his attack too soon. and stumbled into Robinson.

If you play it once and this happens, why fight it? Why say it is wrong? It is what happened.
You are not being limited in any way to complete your task. You can ignore O'neal and Dole and Win. You can eventually control both and win.

My intent in this "HISTORICAL" scenario is to place you in the Shoe's of General Rodes and see if you can overcome what he had to overcome. You are told Doles is not available, yet you try to command him. Why?

If I changed the scenario, It would not be historical any more. So why include it in the historical scenarios.

This is not new by the way. It was also done in TC2M, multiple times.

thanks.. This is NOT a bug.

MarkT

[MarkT]

Further in depth reading has revealed another intersting set of points.

1. Being warned of this situation.
2. Insisting the units follow your orders.
3. Being able to adapt.



1. and 2. you are told that Doles is assigned elseware, (a warning) yet you strive to control him. You insist on ordering him about, to follow YOUR orders. Yet you do not follow the orders of your superior, General Ewell, who tells you that Doles is to be detached.
Just because a unit is under your control does not mean you may always command it.
This brings the question to light "Why is he under my command then?" Answer: because he was. If I removed him, then I would be fielding the question, "historical bug, Where is Doles?"

3. Being able to adapt is what command is all about. All I get out of the people that want to control everything is, "...you are forcing us down a historical path..."
To answer that is simple. You are ignoring the historical scenario setup parameters.
I am simply placing you in a historical situation. How you decide to start and play the game is up to you. If you choose to gang tackle O'Neal and wressle control of Doles from Ewell, or to adapt and regroup O'neal for use later, that is up to you.

[Little Powell]

Well said Mark.

I've always liked the way this scenario plays. BUT, if you still don't like it, the SDK will be out soon enough and you'll be able to change it however you want. And if you don't know how to change it, I'm sure another friendly forum member will change it for you (including me).

[GShock]

There could be historical and free-play scenarios. Ever thought of that?

I would love to play both the What If and the historical thingy, it would be amusing. I dont understand why I have to let O Neal run free from my orders... WHAT IF I had sent a courier telling him I would go and shoot him myself if he didnt follow my orders?

On the other hand, you can really get down deep in the history making of that time and see with Rodes to get the job done and see the difficultiies of coping with other generals and their psychology and initiative but why limiting ourselves to the historical part when we can ALSO have the "what if" part?

I hope in the future we'll have both types of the same scenario. And, another thing... it would also be great to play every scenario from both sides exactly mirrored in settings deployment, scriping and OOB and if you add my "what if" idea, that makes one scenario become 2 and then become actually 4.

1 standard, 1 what if, 1 standard on opposing side, 1 what if opposing side. I suppose it's just about altering OOBs, so pretty easy to do.

[Taiaha]

MarkT wrote:

[snip]
Just because a unit is under your control does not mean you may always command it.

I hope I'm not the only one to whom this statement sounds a tad strange! Maybe you meant the opposite?

Either way, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that many of us can't adapt. As you can see from the various Command School threads, the ways people have been coming up with to win these scenarios are many and varied. But I'm sure we all agree that we want this game to be popular, or at least popular enough to earn the design team enough dolleros so that they can keep making these games. With that in mind, remember that the bulk of players represented here so far are pretty hard core fans. Many of them are also very familiar with the previous games. If you want to attract at least some new players you can't get away with giving players confusing information about how the game will actually play.

This brings the question to light "Why is he under my command then?" Answer: because he was. If I removed him, then I would be fielding the question, "historical bug, Where is Doles?"

This is being a little unfair to what some of us have been saying. No one is disputing the right of a scenario designer to set up a historical situation that will force players to deal with similar situations to those present on the day. But if you are going to do that, don't send players mixed messages about which units they can and can't control. This is not a re-enactment simulation, it is a real-time command simulation. Therefore the lines about what you do and do not meaningfully command in actual gameplay terms need to be very clear.

I recall several situations in TC2M where we had to deal with units being under our command but not our control (units held in reserve, attached elsewhere) but they were, precisely, not under our control. Sometimes we gained control of them at a later point in the scenario, sometimes not. But it was always very clear what you could and could not command.

If a scenario designer wants to create a situation where we have to deal with Doles being assigned elsewhere and not under our direct command, that is great. That's an excellent constraint to have to overcome. But then just don't give us the ability to TC him. It is that simple. If the intent is to create the scenario where O'Neal blunders into Robinson and tips our hand, that too is an awesome idea. . .but then either don't give us command of O'Neal, or better yet, start the scenario with O'Neal already engaged.

With respect, I also don't buy the "you were warned about Doles" argument. I treat all the scenario briefings and most of the courier messages with a grain of salt. In this case I actually thought there was a mistake in the text, since I was told about Doles and yet I seemed to be able to TC him, which seemed strange (and in the "Bullet is not Molded" scenario I was getting a never-ending stream of courier messages ordering me to move up units that were already actively engaged at the front and had been so for some time).

[MarkT]

Interesting:
Three good points:

1. Make two (or more) types of scenarios. Historical and free-style.
Well historical means historical, and free-style means SDK MOD.
How can any scenario designer make a freestyle scenario that pleases everyone?
AND, why would we do this and place it in the "historical" scenario group?
This would double, triple or quadtriple the testing need for release. Just for scenarios 1/2 of you would like/dislike anyway.

2. "Just because a unit is under your control does not mean you may always command it."
Yes opposite works better.

"With respect, I also don't buy the "you were warned about Doles" argument. I treat all the scenario briefings and most of the courier messages with a grain of salt. In this case I actually thought there was a mistake in the text, since I was told about Doles and yet I seemed to be able to TC him, which seemed strange (and in the "Bullet is not Molded" scenario I was getting a never-ending stream of courier messages ordering me to move up units that were already actively engaged at the front and had been so for some time)...."

You are fighting the wrong battle in the historical section of this game.

"...I treat all the scenario briefings and most of the courier messages with a grain of salt.".

This is the historical scenarios, If you choose to ignore the orders and messages from superiors that is your choice. Why get ruffled when your troops do what they are told to do? In a historical setting, (the real world), if Dole was held in reserve, you still could go up to him and order him about, after all, you are his commander. BUT, if things don't work out, you will be removed from command after the battle if not sooner.... In fact ANY Brigadier can theoretically go up to ANY Colonel and order him about. The army frowns on this... (It's the chain of command thing.)
It makes NO difference that the GAME allows you to "not control" troops under your command. This is simply the "historical" situation.
again, when the SDK comes out, have at it.

3. "...and in the "Bullet is not Molded" scenario I was getting a never-ending stream of courier messages" - This is not from the scenario script... and prehaps should be addressed elsware.

Finally,
This scenario sets up and creates Rodes' problem perfectly. The problems the players face are minor compared to what he had to deal with. I respect the opinions of the players but ask them to understand that these are the historical scenarios. It is my job to place you in the actual historical situation of Rodes. I have done that. In this case it included some confusing, but acurate conditions.

As far as the "...the lessons for scenario designers:

1) Don't pretend to give us control of units; if a unit not being under our control is vital for the way you want the scenario to play out, make that clear from the start or use a device like the suggested courier message."

You have command of all units in your division. You may not control them all, all of the time, But this is the historical situation. As far as a message goes, Why would O'Neal send a message to Rodes stating he is attacking too soon. :ohmy:

"2) Don't get so fixated on trying to make an event "historical" that you forget many of us are here to re-write history. "

Rodes was minus two brigades. You are minus two brigades (kinda) Where is the fixation on my behave? Where are the limitations to you?.... "Marching Thru Georgia", I beleive you were the one that stated you were so frustrated you turned the game off. Well, you did change history. Thanks for the lessons... :S

This really has been beaten to death. To fix the things you don't like use the SDK....

Thanks for your comments........

Mark

[GShock]

I fully understand what the scenarios strive to achieve and I like them the way they are, with a very minor problem represented by the fact that before you enter battle you do not know who you can command and who will refuse to cope with your orders.

If we *really* want to search for the needle in the hayfield, I would say that in Rodes' scenario, O'Neal is the only "problem" but once you understand in your first game you can't control it, it's very easily solved. You stop trying to control him and that's all.

Now, PERSONALLY, I would keep O'Neal totally out of the OOB, then, as commander, and as you said, I would let the player use Courier message to O'Neal to command him to enter the battle. It makes more sense than having him act the way he does. The same could be with asking Ewell himself to deliver a support blow from the other division on my right side.

Of course, this is the WHAT IF idea I explained above but as with the historical situation, the scenario is virtually perfect to my eyes the way it is.

I actually think that the Historical setting should keep things TIED to historicity, which means that, as Rodes', I'd have to cope with my AI subordinates and TOTALLY BE DISALLOWED TO USE THE TC BUTTON. A Div commander does not control his troops, he sends couriers. In game terms, I would instate the RGT courier level (smaller than BDE!) which is presently not in the game.

With the historical setting I would stay within the strict limits of historicity and then with the Custom (or even better a WHAT IF) setting, I'd work my way in a totally different set of scenarios, specifically designed with this in mind: What If.

It means that there may not be Chamberlain on my right flank at Little Round top and it might also be, to remain in this specific scenario description, that I call O'Neal into battle and the courier 20 minutes later comes back telling me that Ewell has deployed him in battle elsewhere and so he can't come long! I wanna see the player striving to control the roads to make the courier come as soon as possible with this critical message

What If also means bad sides of what if. The whole battle of gettysburg is being fought on totally open basis. The courier might even come along saying that the whole O'Neal's BDE has been captured, or it has deserted.

This game is so HUGE that anything is really possible and everything starts from scenarios.