Infantry AI

One of the things that I haven’t liked about real time strategy games (but don’t get me wrong, I love RTS) is that a squad of infantry will be given a command and they just run in guns blazing, but don’t take cover or anything like that. It’s usually just a slaughter. I know it would be hard to incorporate, but I think it would be cool to see a squad of marines “go tactical” when you tell them to attack by checking corners, taking cover, giving squad mates covering fire, etc. It would mostly be for aesthetic purposes, just to get the feeling that they know what they are doing. I think it would be cool and help immerse one into the game, but what do you all think?

> 2533274966747513;1:
> One of the things that I haven’t liked about real time strategy games (but don’t get me wrong, I love RTS) is that a squad of infantry will be given a command and they just run in guns blazing, but don’t take cover or anything like that. It’s usually just a slaughter. I know it would be hard to incorporate, but I think it would be cool to see a squad of marines “go tactical” when you tell them to attack by checking corners, taking cover, giving squad mates covering fire, etc. It would mostly be for aesthetic purposes, just to get the feeling that they know what they are doing. I think it would be cool and help immerse one into the game, but what do you all think?

You sir, should play Men of War: Assault Squad 2This game has what your looking for

It would be hard to create a situation awareness for the A.I. in an RTS. How do they interpret when you do want them to run in guns a’blazing versus going in tactical? Sometimes you just need something killed at the cost of a few units. Other times you need those units to stay alive. Using stance/aggression commands could help with that but could end up bogging down the controls. Could, but not necessarily.

My thoughts.

I would like there to be an infantry cover system like Company of Heroes/Dawn of War II.

to take it to another level I would love to entirely redefine how Infantry and building interact.

every building you construct can be entered by infantry. garrisoned infantry can fire out of defensive positions, operate turrets, and defend against enemy infantry incursions.
enemy infantry can also enter your buildings even when occupied.
When infantry are fighting indoors certain weapons would have advantages (shotguns/grenades ect.) meaning certain infantry types could be specialized in close combat in order to capture buildings (Sword Elites/Shotgun ODSTs for example) while others could specialize in defending buildings from vehicles and picking off enemy infantry from a distance.

If enemy infantry occupy one of your buildings unopposed, the building becomes disabled (after a short time of the units damaging the internal equipment)
to repair a disabled building you need to clear out enemy infantry and bring along engineer units to reactivate and repair the build (engineers consumed and become the building’s operators)

Engineer units (low hp weak units) can also demolish enemy buildings they capture after a period of setting up explosives, reducing the structure to rubble (which remains on the battlefield and can be used as cover)

Vehicles can also attack buildings but even heavy weapons take a long time to get through the out hit points of most structures.

This gives infantry a clear “anti building” role and Vehicles an “open battlefield dominance” role.

I would also love to see dodging/mobile Infantry behaviors like the Spartans in HW1 that attempted to avoid incoming heavy weapons fire. this could be present on more units like elites, skirmishers/jackals, jet-pack units ect. It would make anti vehicle weapons have a harder time against infantry making unit counters a little more clear cut.

> 2533274896616265;4:
> I would like there to be an infantry cover system like Company of Heroes/Dawn of War II.
>
> to take it to another level I would love to entirely redefine how Infantry and building interact.
>
> every building you construct can be entered by infantry. garrisoned infantry can fire out of defensive positions, operate turrets, and defend against enemy infantry incursions.
> enemy infantry can also enter your buildings even when occupied.
> When infantry are fighting indoors certain weapons would have advantages (shotguns/grenades ect.) meaning certain infantry types could be specialized in close combat in order to capture buildings (Sword Elites/Shotgun ODSTs for example) while others could specialize in defending buildings from vehicles and picking off enemy infantry from a distance.
>
> If enemy infantry occupy one of your buildings unopposed, the building becomes disabled (after a short time of the units damaging the internal equipment)
> to repair a disabled building you need to clear out enemy infantry and bring along engineer units to reactivate and repair the build (engineers consumed and become the building’s operators)
>
> Engineer units (low hp weak units) can also demolish enemy buildings they capture after a period of setting up explosives, reducing the structure to rubble (which remains on the battlefield and can be used as cover)
>
> Vehicles can also attack buildings but even heavy weapons take a long time to get through the out hit points of most structures.
>
> This gives infantry a clear “anti building” role and Vehicles an “open battlefield dominance” role.
>
> I would also love to see dodging/mobile Infantry behaviors like the Spartans in HW1 that attempted to avoid incoming heavy weapons fire. this could be present on more units like elites, skirmishers/jackals, jet-pack units ect. It would make anti vehicle weapons have a harder time against infantry making unit counters a little more clear cut.

You Also need to try out Men of war lol.

[FouquetFly] Your ideas are so far off from the original game. As always, they are not bad ideas, just very radical with regard to original Halo Wars gameplay.

We’re are here in a desert, thirsty, and asking for water from the well. You’re over there making plans for a water slide that includes a -Yoinking!- loop de loop with a frozen beverage dispenser halfway down that races down through the Grand Canyon and then launches you off of a cliff, to be caught by a skydiving Shia Lebeouf. Oh, and at the very bottom there’s a Mountain Dew Stay Cool station.

Let’s just get some water first, then we’ll go from there.

> 2533274809541057;6:
> [FouquetFly] Your ideas are so far off from the original game. As always, they are not bad ideas, just very radical with regard to original Halo Wars gameplay.
>
> We’re are here in a desert, thirsty, and asking for water from the well. You’re over there making plans for a water slide that includes a -Yoinking!- loop de loop with a frozen beverage dispenser halfway down that races down through the Grand Canyon and then launches you off of a cliff, to be caught by a skydiving Shia Lebeouf. Oh, and at the very bottom there’s a Mountain Dew Stay Cool station.
>
> Let’s just get some water first, then we’ll go from there.

Always there to shoot me down eh? :stuck_out_tongue:

A thirsty man dreams of oceans of water.

at this point we have such little information that all we have is wild speculations and over the top dreams.
This game and it’s setting (Halo + RTS) inspires lots of crazy over the top ideas for my “perfect” game. I am simply excited at the possibilities and spitting them out as they come to me. Most if not all of my suggestions will most likely not make it into the final game but until we know more,

Let me have my fun.

I can’t. I just can’t. You can have any other game to fantasize about.

I feel the need to defend Halo Wars because it is so often misunderstood by the typical FPS halo fanboys or non-RTS players. I’m on offensive-defense mode. It’s why I’m here.

I totally get your defense against FPS fanboys and I am with you 100% in shooting down the constant barrage of “what if we could control a unit like in halo XDDDD !!1!!1” but I hope that my posts have made clear that I am not an inexperienced RTS player nor am I really suggesting anything that would be so outside of the realm of possibility that It could not be considered at least in part for HW2 (referring to individual mechanics suggestions not all of them together at once).

I have made clear that my suggestions are for my own pleasure and I enjoy the setting of a Halo based RTS and my focus is ultimately on PC game-play. Maybe some of my Ideas may spark a conversation about gameplay mechanics that could in part work in HW2 without completely changing the game.

How about a truce? It’s been fun arguing over PC/Xbone topics but at the end of the day we will have to wait and see what we get from the studio.

Well, I’ll cut back on my shooting down your posts, at least for now. But I’ll be putting the odd word in here or there still with regard to your ideas.

I’ve appreciated that you actually formulate arguments.

> 2533274809541057;10:
> Well, I’ll cut back on my shooting down your posts, at least for now. But I’ll be putting the odd word in here or there still with regard to your ideas.
>
> I’ve appreciated that you actually formulate arguments.

and I’ve appreciated having someone to call me out and force me to improve my arguments.

It’s pretty much just me, you and RAmage that are the “serious posters” on this forum at the moment and a bunch of casuals passing through dropping substance-less suggestions.

Once we get some real news you’ll see a bunch of the old community come back.

I think your thoughts are good, but think of the time some of the fights would consume when all the details are available for fine tuning. whatever Halo 2 has i will try in and probably love it.

> 2533274896616265;11:
> > 2533274809541057;10:
> > Well, I’ll cut back on my shooting down your posts, at least for now. But I’ll be putting the odd word in here or there still with regard to your ideas.
> >
> > I’ve appreciated that you actually formulate arguments.
>
>
> and I’ve appreciated having someone to call me out and force me to improve my arguments.
>
> It’s pretty much just me, you and RAmage that are the “serious posters” on this forum at the moment and a bunch of casuals passing through dropping substance-less suggestions.

I just want to chime in and say I really enjoy your guys’ input and comments. It really does make reading and posting here fun.

With that said, The Rudy, I know it would be hard to incorporate, I guess I was just dreaming, too. However, there could possibly a “tactical” behavior function, along with aggressive/passive. But, again, how to tell the AI’s what is cover, where to look and what not to do? It could be possible with a sort of system where the squad leader is the smart one who “knows” what to do and tells the other not as smart AIs… Now I’m just rambling… But something like that would be cool.

FouqetFly, your ideas are pretty awesome. It would be cool if there were key buildings that could be taken/defended via CQB. I think that would really help develop the infantry units and almost force people to use infantry along with their air and armor units, therefore giving them more variety. However, it could get a little too complex with the special weapons and advantages that comes with them. It is a good idea, though.

Now, if Halo Wars 2 were to get Mouse and keyboard functionality, I’d say give’er with a lot of these suggestions.

> 2533274809541057;15:
> Now, if Halo Wars 2 were to get Mouse and keyboard functionality, I’d say give’er with a lot of these suggestions.

Good point. Something I’m not sure I would be willing to sacrifice for some cool looking AI movement.

Agreed

well im not sure if developers are able to add tactical thinking to ai squads, but it would without questions improve the gameplay. Im just hoping developers wont screw up the story.