Battlezone 1

Hi, I would like to see improved AI of some units. I was reading what reviewers didn't like about Battlezone when it first came out, and almost all thought the game is flawless, except one thing - AI. I also witnessed numerous talks in lobby and on forums about "dumb" AI, and how some don't even want to play strategy because AI is useless.

Most MP units are ok the way they are now, the problem exists only with Czar, Grizzly, Razor, Flanker and Bobcat. Unless they are on follow command they indeed act very stupid and a bunch of them can easily be destroyed by a skilled human player. When they are set to follow, they are much more aggressive and even a couple of them can make your life miserable. I think all would agree that is the way they should be from the start, not just on follow command, because new players don't know about it. They usually just order their units to attack and lose them all. Because of this issue they get discouraged and rarely ever play strat again.

Well, I know how that can easily be fixed. By changing thier current aiNames to "RocketTank" that AI aggressiveness and awareness can be achieved from the start, or maybe it's even simplier to do it in the code (equal "Scout" and "Tank" to "RocketTank"?). Like it is now, it looks like something unintentional, a typo, considering Stoli has it written right.

Check this video made in Editor:


I think this simple change would make people play Battlezone even more and eliminate one of the biggest things people complained about over the years. It would definitely make strategy more appealing and easier for new players.

Could we get this in 1.5?

HAL definitely has a valid point. The regular "Tank" AI is indeed very "dumb" when ordered to directly attack another unit. It takes a moment for it to actually start shooting and once it does, it will turn away and retreat on even a tiny hit from a plasma rifle. Most players first attempting strategy in BZ give direct attack orders to their units. I never figured out how to attack effectively with the AI on my own, Mr. Spock had to demonstrate the power of the follow command. If the effectiveness of the follow command for tanks and scouts was at least explained in the BZ manual, this AI thing probably wouldn't be such a big deal.

I think some change would be nice, but how much change? Currently, this is how tank AI behaves:

tank on follow - aggressive
tank on hunt - passive
idle tank sees enemy - passive
tank given direct attack order on unit - passive
tank given direct attack order on static building - aggressive

I am in favor of this change:

tank given direct attack order on unit - change to aggressive

But I am not sure about the others, because making a hunting tank and idle tank aggressive would change the gameplay quite a bit. In many single player IA missions, the AI will flood you with a massive amount of units set to hunt. (and/or perhaps attack order, not sure) If all those units were aggressive, I don't think I'd live to beat the mission. The IA mission "Ice Ice Baby" is a good example. The single player campaign would be more likely to tear you apart, which may or may not be a good gameplay change.

It seems that the AI was made a certain way to force the commander to be on the front lines. If direct attack orders are aggressive, that means the satellite will be more useful for them. But in most cases, I think the commander would still want to be on the front lines to give his orders, as using a comm tower still does give commander's position away.

Why you think that only one side would get improved units? Get your facts straight.

And don't complicate with different commands. If Grendel or Stoli are always the same, why not Grizzly and Razor too? Don't ruin this possible improvement for everybody just because you learned about the "following" after 11 years.

Of course both sides get better units. Where did I say that only 1 side gets them? You're probably right though, that all passive behavior should be aggressive.

You said that SP will be harder. How is that if both sides will get improved units?

Probably? There's still a possibilty that we are not right? Idle Bobcat meets aggressive Stoli and remains passive, really sounds right to you? I'm positive you didn't even watch the video.

It would be worth a shot to test, but I am still kinda skeptical. It does bring up a good point about the AI, but It may be a bit much on a gameplay change. It would certainly be quite the difference in how plays Single Player . At least a trial of this improvement would be in order before its set in stone in 1.5. I can't give a definite yes or no on this improvement.

Ah, another one who knows about the "following" is not fully for this... Surprise surprise... Let's keep our secret (which takes time to master) only to ourselves. Let's keep watching new player's tanks & scouts wandering around and laugh to them. Let all newcomers quit strat due dumb AI, and become DM'ers. All that so 10 of us, who know how to use "following" properly, could rule the Zone forever!

If HAL 9000, strat champion for years, is asking for this, that should tell you something...

How can AI of a 5 problematic units, to reach the level of all other units in the game, even be debatable? Lot of newer game titles got buried cause of dumb AI, but their programmers quickly fixed that with the patches. Why would it be any different with BZ and its 1.5 patch, especially if we are dealing with a possible typo or something that was overlooked?

You know what, let's not get this improvement, now we at least know who to blame, and his name is not Ian Davis.

I didn't say I didn't want this, I said wasn't sure of it. It would be a change from a 12 year old game that I'm not(or a few others) used to.

I can't help but be skeptical because of something very new, anyone who encounters something new and unexpected can't help but feel skeptic. I could warm up to the idea of Improved AI. It can be a real good improvement. This idea just came out of left-field though. I don't know how to respond. I could work with either way though in the end. Whatever's best for the game.

If its unintentional, then for sure fix it. If not, then the debate begins.

You know what, just omit my opinion, its probably useless.

Maybe we should leave E-W fix out if this patch too? We are all used not to shoot when in E-W line (except poor new players who think one is taking no damage), so that fix is a big gameplay change too. Or maybe we should leave recycler improvement out, cause some are used to rec-dive, so they'll consider it a big gameplay change?

Ok, im done.... forget me, i surely know nothing.

i am definately for this change to some extent. i do know the power of the follow command, and understand what happens if you DONT know the power of it and how bad you get slapped. however, i do understand that, although the change will probably end up to be good, it will be HUGE. probably one of the biggest besides the major bug fixes. i dont doubt that its a brilliant idea, but i would like to see some testing especially on single player missions.

also, i dont believe that every command should have the AI on aggressive. a huge component of strat is staying in your tank and not being ejected(which im not very good at:P)and ejected the other player. therefore the lack of a commander being present should amount to some reduction in AI strength.

possible idea:

tank on follow - aggressive (reason: its always been like this)
tank on hunt - passive (if the player is ejected/killed, he cant just command his army to hunt and become agressive, therefore greatly reducing the other commanders benefit from sucessfully ejected the player)
idle tank sees enemy - passive (if you just leave your unit with no orders, you need to be able to be caught by surprise)
idle tank is shot at by enemy - aggressive (it wouldnt be fair if an idle vehicle stayed passive when getting shot at, esp if the other unit became agressive)
tank given direct attack order on unit - aggressive (this will help in strat alot, making the attack command MUCH more useful. you could have some tanks focus on the other player while others take out the incoming APCs, ect. the possibilities are quite endless)
tank given direct attack order on static building - aggressive (why should your tanks be any less aggressive if you told them to attack a building?)

also, things like how much the AI uses the full, W-powered speed or the slower "Q" speed and differing levels of aggressiveness could all be experimented with. i would definately like to test this idea and see much testing done, but on the whole i think its a great idea. i completely eliminates DMers doing good in strat by attacking ur AI when ur not there or somthn, but it also allows new players to learn their skills faster and not be totally wiped out by a vet

1. Accapting yours or Spork's ideas would be a big change - changing how units react on a different commands. Accapting HAL's idea is simply equaling 5 units with the rest.

2. Follow command wouldn't lose its power. It would still be important for units to stay grouped and behind you or following something else.

You're right. That way new players who logically give "Hunt" or "Attack" command, expecting their AI to... oh I don't know... ACTUALLY ATTACK STUFF will enjoy strategy and won't spend months or years wondering "why the heck is the AI so stupid?" the way I did. I spent years struggling to beat single player and ended up activating all the built-in cheats and killing everything myself. Seriously, it shouldn't be that way.

I have come to the realization that debating this is dumb. It's the way every new player expects AI to fight. It really makes no sense for an AI tank and scout to attack like they don't really care, or are reluctant, or are procrastinating. I call that insubordination.

After some intense thought, I changed my mind. I'm in total support of this. It should bring a more interesting challenge to Bz Single Player, should be more fun and a whole new challenge to conquer.

I cleared both BZ campaigns on medium with all "Tank" and "Scout" AI changed to "RocketTank" AI. It was a blast! It actually forced me to think outside the box to beat some missions, as the enemy is now somewhat dangerous, and I was so used to the enemy being completely pathetic.

There is no strategy player in their right mind who will say no to smarter tank AI (after actually giving it some thought and testing it, and seeing how amazing Tanks and Scouts/Fighters can be when they're not pathetic at "Hunt" and "Attack") Finally, I was able to tell my AI which targets to destroy, instead of just abusing "Follow" command and hoping they pick the right targets. Their targets were not pathetic either, they were born to kill. Turrets were no longer adequate by themselves, I also had to have mobile offense units to act as defense. I failed "An Unexpected Connection" twice, due to losing my recycler while away from base. I am happy about that. I barely cleared "Wrangling the Fleeing Herd". The AI took out my scavs and cons, and I had exactly 6 scrap for the Tug to grab the relic after painfully destroying the convoy and having no units survive except myself. Commanding AI makes more sense when they are all aggressive. You tell them to Attack, and they attack. You tell them to Hunt and they inflict pain on anything that crosses their path. They fight like soldiers of war... the way it should have been all along. If they are following you and you lose your tank, no more do they cower away in fear, they avenge you!

"RocketTank" AI for the EPIC WIN!

Here's the AI if you want to test it:

I even found that the Black Dog Bomber was using Tank AI. That's a typo for sure. I modified 20 files, but that's because the ships have several variants. There's really only 9 ships modified, 6 if you consider the NSDF and Black Dogs as 1, 5 if you also consider that the BDog Bomber should have been RocketTank AI all along.

Czar
Flanker
Grizzly (NSDF)
Grizzly (BDOG)
Razor (NSDF)
Razor (BDOG)
Bobcat (NSDF)
Bobcat (BDOG)
Thunderbolt (BDOG)