Tank Combat Design - AI Thoughts

[zoombapup]

We're trying to finish up Panzer Ace (current game) for christmas and I'm just working on the Tank AI right now.

I've got a ton of old AI framework code to draw on, so this isnt a "how do you do AI" post :)

What I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on what Tank combat should be like from a players perspective.

I mean, its a noob mistake to think that by emulating what real tanks do in combat will actually make for a fun game. Fact is, most often in games AI, you have to think about the players perceptions and what you want them to feel like and then project that back into the AI design.

So, what I'm after is feedback in terms of what you as a designer would like to be able to do with a tank combat game. For example, what kind of mission designs would you create and how do you think the AI would need to handle each one?

My own missions are tending towards a weird mix of "protect convoy" missions and "there are enemy tanks in that town, go flush em out" missions. Just want to get a base of ideas to design my AI toolkit around really.

[Artinum]

One factor here would be how aggressive the tanks are. For a convoy mission you'd want AI tanks to seek you out and attack (sitting around looking after themselves would be rather pointless) but the opposite is true for a seek-and-destroy mission - if the tanks all charge out to get you, you could just sit tight and wait for them to find you.

[bvanevery]

Based on screenshots of Air Ace (http://www.airaceonline.com/screenshots.aspx) I assume this is a tank simulator where you're looking out of the cockpit of your own tank? Do you command other tanks? Can you switch to their perspective or are you just the tank leader?

Surviving enemy air supremacy should be an advanced / difficult / late game scenario.

I'd like to pick off a bunch of enemy tanks that get stuck in mud, at river crossings, on bridges (preferably by blasting the bridge foundations if it's small and fragile enough), on tight roads with wrecked vehicles in the way, or snarled in their own massive traffic jam on a battlefield due to excess congestion / traffic. Similarly if I'm caught in these bad positions, I'd like to be able to blast wrecked vehicles out of the way. Or non-wrecked ones if I'm really desperate. :D

Surviving infantry in an urban streetfight should be an advanced / difficult scenario. Like having Molotov cocktails dropped on you, or grenades thrown in your hatch. Might not be as much fun for the player though. Point is that tanks aren't the only thing out there that can fight you. I'd want to be able to machine gun the offending infantry. Also grind over them with my treads.

I'd want to shell things with indirect fire.

I'd like a flamethrower tank, especially for jungles.

I'd like to wreck buildings by driving through them. I'd like enemy tanks to get stuck / immobilized when doing this.

[Artinum]

What about landmines? Different terrain? Weather effects? I can see tanks getting stuck in heavy mud. Can explosions turn tanks over? Sudden ditches?

Another factor is ammunition. Games like Command and Conquer seem to delight in giving vehicles and infantry infinite rounds when an actual strategic factor is your ammunition constraints. If your tank gets cut off in enemy territory there are no reloads, so you'd need to plot your shots carefully. If you have supply lines, how do tanks reload?

What about sound? Do gunfire, explosions and tank engines make noise that AI can track? Could you conceal your tanks and switch the engines off to hide from enemies?

Can your infantry leave the tank? Can you carry passengers (eg. as mission objectives - get X to the safe zone)? Indeed, can you lure enemy troops out of their tanks and then steal them?

Can your tanks fire straight up (wind permitting) and have the shells blow themselves up? I'm not saying this is sensible but it might be fun!

[zoombapup]

I guess I'll maybe come up with a few mission designs and post them so that people can see what I'm doing and critique.

[ChrisP]

Another factor is ammunition. Games like Command and Conquer seem to delight in giving vehicles and infantry infinite rounds when an actual strategic factor is your ammunition constraints.

To be fair to C&C, I've played RTS games (well, one RTS game) where you have supply lines to take care of, and... well... it's tedious. Very tedious. As a player, I'd much rather be rampaging through the countryside, as opposed to worrying about organising and protecting supply convoys.

In the particular game I'm thinking of, most units didn't actually need ammo, since this was set in feudal Japan if I remember correctly; most units used swords. They did need food while in enemy territory though, or their health would steadily decrease. Made it quite hard to mount an offensive campaign. Realistic? Sure. Fun? Nope.

Which is not to say that one couldn't design a game in which ammunition constraints were fun. I suspect a smaller-scale game (with few units) could pull it off more easily than a larger-scale game (with many units, such as an RTS), since it's less tedious to manage ammunition for fewer units. As an extreme example, it's never a problem in first-person shooters.

All of which just goes to say that I think C&C's decision to not make the player manage ammunition was a good one. No reason why it couldn't be made to work in Panzer Ace, or any other game... just be careful that the tedium doesn't outweigh the interest generated by the additional strategic options.