The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:47 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 6:08 pm 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:51 am
Posts: 284
Location: Mass
There's definetly a lot of work being done to ensure that the story, and weapons will be historicaly accurate, but what about the tactics employed at the time, by the troops being showcased?

Athough the American Revolution, and Civil wars take place before Alliance, they are very good examples of periods where drastic changes in military tactics were advanced (although only after painfull lessons) to meet the newer technology thrust upon them. I'm no general, nor a qualified military historian in such matters, but i must believe that in the 100 year timespan that Alliance takes place that changes in practics and tactics continued.

One of the often stated "what if" scenarios is what if a small SEAL team took on a group of people with WWI Rifles? While i'm sure the statment pertains to Multiplayer it's intresting to disect it from a singleplay perspective because it makes us ask: Are we talking about soldiers from WW1, or are we talking about modern soldiers with WWI weapons? Are we talking about a small group of people with SEAL weapons or actual SEAL training. Someone onced asked me if you had a highly trained soldier Seal/Ranger/SAS ect and gave him a butter knife vs someone who had little to no training, but was heavily armed... who would you bet on?

Another game series that i like are the CIV titles. Often in SP games (esp ones set on easy) you come across scenarios where you have two units engage in combat and the more technologically advanced unit dies somehow. "WTF how did a spearman destroy my tank!?!? Thats a load of BS" is usually what i, and many others would yell. Then someone suggested to me that the spearman may only have access to knives, stone, wood ect, but that doesn't mean he doesn't understand his enemy, his strenghts, weakness ect ect. In other words his weapons might be outdated but his tactics might be cutting edge. He then joklying refered me to the well known ewok battle of endor where tribal teddybears armed with knives and axes and rocks took out walking battle tanks.

I guess the point i'm making is that it's important to research what kind of tactics were in use during the battles in the game because in terms of the AI there's a big difference between difficulty (as in how good a shot are they how well does he work with his team...) and what kind of training he got. To use the American civial war reference again. Toward the end of the civil war both sides upgraded to newer rifles that were much more accurate and could be fired faster. The generals didn't take this into account and when the two sides went to battle both used the same tactics they had prior to the upgrade. The result: Massive loss of life for both sides. They were use to battles where you were lucky to make 1 out of 10 shots hit your target and reloading was measured in the mins not seconds. They stood in open fields lined up all nice and before any additional orders could be given nearly everyone was dead.

I think in practice if you were to give a soldier from the past a more modern weapon his instinct would be to use it as a replacement for the weaponry he is used to rather than to understand it's proper employment. We can imagine a silly scenario where you are in the middle of a modern war (say iraq for example) and all of a sudden pooof your M16/ak47 has been somehow replaced with a futuristic gun. There's a breif pause in the fighting as everyone is wondering what is going on and inspects thier new toys to find that they can see through walls.. OMG you think as you see all the enemy positions. Next thing you know the guy sitting next to you is zapped.. Your first reaction is "ack get to cover" PAUSE.

-- You just realized that your weapon (and the enemies) is capable of tracking and firing on targets behind cover, but your natural instinct from all your years of FPS games has told you that you need to get to cover. Not realizing it you have been conditioned, trained to seek cover even though a few moments ago that these advanced weapons ignor cover.

I think something similar would apply to giving a WWI rifleman a TAR21 but to a smaller degree.

Anyhow sorry for the long post.. i just ran with it. :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 7:59 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
Im not sure how that would be included in multi-player though, people will do what they want regardless of how their player should react in combat.

Good point on accuracy being important though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:05 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:07 am
Posts: 376
Location: Sweden
We talking about CO-OP's here...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:55 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
IceBallz wrote:
We talking about CO-OP's here...


*Doh!* Now I feel dumb :(

Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:23 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
IceBallz wrote:
We talking about CO-OP's here...
I didn't see any mention of co-op in his post...

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:22 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:59 pm
Posts: 1027
Location: Houston, TX
AeroCmdr wrote:
IceBallz wrote:
We talking about CO-OP's here...
I didn't see any mention of co-op in his post...


I read it over again and he was talking about the AI of NPCs in the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:49 am 
Offline
Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:51 am
Posts: 284
Location: Mass
Correct. I realize that in MP you'll never fully be able to have a realistic "what if" when dealing with trying to include certain "army vs army" situations... because people are going to play they way they want to play (BF2) rather than a true "what if".

In singleplayer the AI however can, and hopefully should be designed to act per their training. Obviously the player wounldn't be bound to these regulations and procedures, but hopefully the AI should behave sensibly.
Well trained armies for example would work better as a team, and at larger levels of organization capable of complex tactics like flanking manuvering, but Milita, Revolutionaries, or angry mobs would probably exhibt teamwork on a much smaller scale, probably isolated 2-3 man groups, and a large number of "lone gunmen". At the solider or person level your much more likely to see poor combat skills with an individual not professionally trained. Not just poor aim, but would vary widly between overly aggressive (not taking cover like running down the center of a street or standing up on tall building as in the gameplay trailer) and being overly defensive (hiding behind cover so much that your letting the enemy advance.. Ie being too scared to pop your head up.)

I guess i'm trying to seperate not just a "skill" level but also a seperate "team work" variable for the AI. Skills would be things like how well they can aim, understanding of cover, and other indivdual level things that experience would improve upon so they would vary alot person to person in an non profesional army, but you'd probably never see any sophisticated team work occure because that's something that relies too heavily on training, rank, organization and in many cases equipment. (lack of a radio for example) --- Another major difference not only between Armies, but different era's is the adoption of a set of "rules of engagment".
A perfect example of this that many movie goers might remember is a part from "blackhawk down" where a US soldier shoots a man, and then a nearby woman rushes to pickup a rifle and return fire. The US soldier refrains from shooting the woman untill she was a true threat, because he's obligated to follow a set of rules telling him what and who he can shoot. Had that event occured during or prior to vietnam it's quite likely that the woman would've been shot before she went for the rifle because i'm sure that the rules at the time were something like "grid positon 123 X 123 is declaired hostile, sweep & clear". While i wouldn't estimate that todays US military adhears to it's ROE 100% it shows a clearly different doctrin designed to reduce collateral damages that would drastically effect gameplay if simulated. I'd be intrested to hear if any other nations use a ROE and if so when it was put in practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:07 am
Posts: 376
Location: Sweden
Well. Cooperative Operations is like 6 humans against 30-1??? AI-bots. So what he is talking about, is singleplay and co-op's... It's just only in this gaming types you find AI-bots and not like human vs human team deathmatches... So it is about singleplay and co-op's = PLAYING AGAINST AI, HE IS REALY TALKING ABOUT......

You just can't setup any tactics on only human based game types... lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:10 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: New York, NY
It's a matter of balance and fine tuning. We want the AI to be as lifelike and smart as possible, while also being robust, stable, and bug-free. As such, how flexibile and wide-ranging it is will depend on how well we're able to meet those requirements along the sliding scale of flexibility.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:45 am 
Offline
Recruit

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:31 am
Posts: 1
Just wanted to mention a couple things:

First, I don't really like your examples as conflicts marking evolutions in tactical theory. Maybe I'm just nitpicking (and perhaps also being a jerk) but neither conflict involved substantial tactical advances. Though the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War started fighting in a more 3rd-generation style of warfare, as soon as they had European advisers and sufficient manpower, they devolved right back into closed-formation infantry. Same thing with the American Civil War- new technologies met stagnant officers, and the wars were fought the same old way.

I do like your point, though- it would be nice to see the tactics of the enemies evolve over time. The evolution toward smaller units of maneuver would really make for a fresh gameplay experience, and keep the fighting itself from getting boring- each change of theater or timeframe could involve a shift in mode of thought and execution.

Of course, there are a couple problems with that- as Sox mentioned, there is the issue of robustness and stability. There are inevitable hardware limitations involved in creating separate AI engines to deal with the different tactical patterns of soldiers, as well as the time issue in creating said engines. Additionally, the gameplay could go incredibly imbalanced if the AI was fighting with 19th-century tactics- say early WWI- and the player were using his experience with modern methods of fighting to overmatch and outfight his enemy with ease. Mowing down rank after rank of shoulder-to-shoulder, non-dodging companies of slow-moving infantry would just get depressing and dull.

So there are really considerations on both sides, and it has to be seen whether it's possible to involve changing tactics without overwhelming development timeframes and the hardware of the player. I must admit, I'm anxious to see how it turns out- either way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:10 am 
Offline
2nd Lieutenant

Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 592
I dident read all the stuff before this so spare me if im restating something. yes tactics have changed since ww1, in ww1 it was whistle blasts that where followed by line charges. that tactic was forever lost when tanks were made. the japanese in ww2 still used bonzai charges for the beginning of the war, but soon changed pace when that really dident work. squad tactics in world war two differed per team, the allies were based upon their riflemen for their main strenght, while the germans used their machinegunners as their main strenght. in modern times the purpose of each man in a squad is overlapped by many others, so if man in that squad is taken out of the picture, the others can cover his position.

it would be extremely neet to see the AI acting in line with what their real tactics would have been for that time period, however that would also mean alot more work.

_________________
No sigs makes threads load faster!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group