Suggestion for MP Co-op

[Olszowy]

Our group likes to play corps level scenarios either randomly set up or tactical scenarios run by one person. Many times, even with objectives and aggression changes, the AI often does not play well with others. AI Defenses are really hard to execute in a co-op as are coordinated attacks.
I know the suggestion for turning on battlescript for MP co-op has been discussed and appears not to be viable at this time. Something I recall from my days as an exercise controller might offer another way. Could you provide an option that would allow one player, perhaps the game host, to give commands to both sides? You've already got the orders and battle map functions. Is it possible to allow a player to have access to the enemy OOB to give commands as a player? You would not even need to view the normal map, just be able to select the commander and send an order to move or attack or defend. Our simulations usually allowed for the exercise controllers to access and control entities on both sides for various reasons. We do this now sorta-kinda for MP co-op play, but I use another computer with Lee on it to ensure the AI partcipates and ensures fun for players instead of sitting around or moving off into a corner and sitting.
The other way I make sure the AI engages in a co-op game is to place a regiment from a rebel division within reaction distance to player units in scenario set up. Much like the LOS the sandbox provides but at regimental level so that I can place "trigger" units near human controlled corps so that the AI will attack from various direction and times. The parent organization will respond to help the "trigger" unit. Works pretty well in fact. Last Thursday managed to have the AI cut off human controlled US II and III corps into pockets that had to be rescued.

[Ingles of the 57th]

Hi Olszowy (wonder how many in US know how to pronounce that correctly ...... they murdered poor Stokowsky?)

Like your post. I always enjoy reading an erudite and well explained topic.

Although not an MP player myself, I too find that the sandbox AI, particularly at Corps and Army level, behaves very implausibly ..... both enemy and friendly.

I have made a few posts suggesting that a bit more processing time be dedicated to positioning units more logically both at startup and during later battle developments. The unlikely 'grid' positioning of Corps and Divisions and the complete ignoring of terrain ( artillery in the middle of a forest, infantry in swamps and water) bears little resemblance to reality. Lee would have died laughing.

I too would like the ability to edit and rationalize the Sandbox Scenario as presented, certainly before starting ...maybe during the game also as Olszowy would like. Roughly in the same way that a devilish and sadistic instructor will program and dynamically re-program the parameters into a simulator.

I know well that every little bit of extra cleverness to be accorded to the AI requires an enormous amount of data interpreting and complex decision making. But, possessing a human brain, I am actually quite good at it (or so I like to believe)and I would love to give the AI a bit of help once it provides the basics. Or a colleague, playing instructor, could even take the keyboard every fifteen minutes or so and diabolically queer the pitch a bit.

A sort of SOWGB chess problem. A bit more interest for those whose situation and poor facilities make MP impractical.


Geoff Laver Late of Her Britannic Majesty's 57th Regiment of Foot.

[Olszowy]

[quote]Hi Olszowy (wonder how many in US know how to pronounce that correctly ...... they murdered poor Stokowsky?)

I cannot count how many times people have added an "ski" on the end for no particular reason. :sick: What can you expect from an alphabet with only 26 letters...and I've met more than few people who are challenged with just those 26.
After 24 years of participating, planning, and executing military grade simulations and live training I've learned a bit about terrain and making scenario construct that is challenging. Everything we built was designed to stress/improve users abilities.
I enjoy manuevering corps and divisions into tactically advantageous positions. Always enjoyable to find yourself on the flank or rear of an enemy player. It is better still to get a defense established on good ground.
As you point out military units move in specific orders of march to execute specific purposes. One of my friends built an editor that allows us to place corps in a div/bde column formation and allows us to drag and drop corps to specific locations. It also allows us to randomly increase and decrease supply and regimental troop strength among other things. In moments I can build a tactically sound scenario that will challenge a player. Unfortunately as you know, that is the easy part.
The biggest problem we've faced is getting the AI div/corps to move in a tactically sound manner in a co-op battle. Unless there is a reason to do otherwise the AI makes random decisions and will as likely move away from a player than towards or just not move. Even our military grade simulations had the same issue which is why exercise control always had the ability to influence both sides. Randomness is fine until it ruins play.
As I mentioned I use lone regiments close to player units to draw in the AI. These lone regiments will pull the parent division into contact. What I typically build is an ad-hoc screening force/advance guard with regiments from various divisions. Looks like a brigade sized force skirmishing or blocking a road, but it may have regiments from multiple divisions. The parent organizations are located at different positions and distance on the front and flank and it can make for quite a co-op fight. I also upped the enemy command, control, leadership, and style ratings in the OOB to improve AI reactions. HITS/couriers will also increase challenge significantly.
However, none of that matters if the AI sits or marches away. Then you spend time looking for and marching to an AI unit that has decided to tuck itself into the far corners of nowhere.

[Davinci]

Please Delete: Double Post: Thanks!

davinci

[Davinci]

@Olszowy - Hey, I'm not exactly sure if this applies here or is relevant, but in the OOB under the Style \ Column X, if I use a 6 instead of a 5 I can never seem to find the enemy units.

It appears that 6 will cause the units to hide somewhere on the map, where-as 5 causes them to march around.

I'm still in the process of testing this!

davinci

[RebBugler]

What you are asking is to allow AlphaOmega control, don't think this will fly, too many ways for it to be abused if MP play is to remain competitive and fair. Surely battlescript scripting can be worked out eventually, I'll continue to push this path. Your AI magnet regiments is a good idea, from scenario scripting I know how this can be a strong influence on the AI, and is difficult to counter even with solid and redundant scripting techniques. Hang in there, SOW cavalry is aware and concerned, hopefully we'll save the day before you guys get discouraged. In the meantime, find yourselves someone to be the other side and guide the enemy AI, surely there are some willing Generals out there, and it only takes one.

[Olszowy]

What you are asking is to allow AlphaOmega control, don't think this will fly, too many ways for it to be abused if MP play is to remain competitive and fair. Surely battlescript scripting can be worked out eventually, I'll continue to push this path. Your AI magnet regiments is a good idea, from scenario scripting I know how this can be a strong influence on the AI, and is difficult to counter even with solid and redundant scripting techniques. Hang in there, SOW cavalry is aware and concerned, hopefully we'll save the day before you guys get discouraged. In the meantime, find yourselves someone to be the other side and guide the enemy AI, surely there are some willing Generals out there, and it only takes one.

I assumed someone would bring this up which is why I suggested it be allowed only on the host machine. I am certain that you could code in a visible warning that would show players it is on and active although I am equally certain someone desperate enough to cheat for a win will find a way. Which is sad, but a reality.
As to your second point. A bit problematic. I enjoy PVP MP and have no issue with it. However, many people do not like the competitive nature of PVP. No, that's not right. There are more than a few whose egos get bruised easily when they lose in PVP. Especially if the scenario is not well thought out and results in a less than balanced play(not fair mind you, but balanced) I've seen people go ballistic in coop play when someone does not support in a manner they think is correct.
I've run the same scenario close to 100 times now putting trigger regiments in various places with parent organizations at various distances. It resulted in some very decent echelon left and right attacks along with successive waves. As the human player I executed different actions with the troops in contact and the AI will always react, but never quite the same way twice. The one thing I note is that the parent organization will bee-line and go into formation of some type. This usually means the AI arrives exhausted as they will go through whatever terrain is between the contact and parent unit.
One thought I had was to build a very small regiment and see if I could come up with a transparent flag/unit. An invisible trigger as it were.

[Jim]

Interesting topic. The Corps level AI is not extensively developed. The reason for this is that there are few instances in the ACW where a full Corps maneuvered as a unit. Historically this seems to follow from the fact that in the Eastern US there were relatively few open spaces large enough to form a full corps and then do anything with it. Because of this we spent more effort on the brigade and division level AI to better match the important control levels in these battles.

-Jim