• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

SteelOnyx

Corporal
6 Badges
Dec 26, 2019
25
0
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • BATTLETECH
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
Even on the hardest settings, the game is entirely too easy and one dimensional. The following could help to change that and make it much more immersive:

  1. Improved AI
  2. Dynamically adjusting the Mech tonnage on story line missions to the tonnage deployed
  3. Multiple lances on the same mission
  4. A reason to actually use light and medium mechs as part of a mission strategy once the heavies become available
  5. Change up of the mech load outs
  6. World Play

Improved AI
The AI is entirely too predictable and doesn't behave anywhere close to the way real people would in a similar situation. If a lance just had two of it's mechs completely blown away and were still facing double the tonnage they would not charge forward, they would run. Most people are not suicidal, the AI should not be either and it would make it an additional challenge in the game.

In the same vein give the AI pilots names and make it so they can eject or run away if possible. It would make the game more personal than some random faction head appearing in a pop up message to tell the player how they will make us pay. It also would contribute to the strategy there would be some incentive to keep the AI warriors from amassing more XP with each encounter.

In attacking, a lance would not send the faster mechs ahead to battle the opposing lance by themselves only to get blown away by greater fire power. Put some logic in place so it actually checks what the odds are (based on sensor data) so the AI doesn't march its mechs single file into a hail of gunfire to uselessly die. Maybe the quick and dirty is to only have the AI deploy mechs with relatively the same run and jump capabilities.

Provide the AI with some actual strategy, at times they just seem to randomly attack the nearest available target instead of doing any kind of threat analysis to see which mechs it should target first. Some people go for the lightest armored first, others go based on who can do the most damage.

Give the AI the ability to target critical areas on player mechs. If I see a mech coming at me that has an AC20 or multiple PPC's, the first thing I do is look for the area on the mech to target with the least amount of armor that is easy to hit with a called shot and will disable the weapons.

Stop with multiple mechs in a lance opting to sensor lock. In my own play style I found sensor locking useful early in the game, but once the range enhancers are available it is a tool I almost never use. However the AI seems to love using it later in the game, I have been in situations where 2 out of 4 AI 80 and 90 ton mechs opt to hide behind a boulder and sensor lock me instead of actually firing or at least maneuvering to a position that will give them a better firing solution next round.

Lastly it would be nice if the game adjusted AI to the play strategy of the player. For example in my play style I almost never close to a range of less than 400m. It is stupid for the AI to throw a couple of Crabs mounted with AC20 at me since I have usually blown off their arms, legs or torso before they can even get in range to use them. To counter the AI should either switch more often to specialty long range mechs or mechs capable of closing the gap faster. The point is it should be tracking what the player does and adjusting accordingly especially if we have fought against that faction multiple times.

Dynamically Adjust Story Line Mech Tonnage
I usually get access to heavier mechs fairly early on because I go for the harder missions. The result is that by time I get to the story line missions my lowest tonnage mech is significantly higher than anything the AI deploys.

Multiple lances on the same mission
The original PC game supported multiple lances and from a systems standpoint there are multiple missions in this version where there are 12 or more mechs on the screen at any given time.

Late Game Light and Medium Mechs
At a certain point in the game keeping light and medium mechs becomes a waste of bay space and cash because they serve no strategic purpose later in the game. If there is a mission that requires a speed element, I just grab a heavy or assault mech capable of hitting 120 and great jumping. It would be nice to have situations that actually require the use of those mechs which would be made much easier with being able to have multiple lances.

Change Up the Mech Load Outs
The game appears to keep the AI mechs loaded out according to the base variants which in many cases means more weapons than they will actually ever use in combat resulting in wasted tonnage that could be used for extra armor or cooling thereby making them more effective in combat. While a mech having a balance of long, middle and short ranged weapons is nice on paper, more often than not it just winds up in them doing mediocre damage under AI control as the player deploys mechs and tactics for the purpose of maximum damage.

World Play
The original BATTLETECH is focused around putting a drop ship on a planet as a base of operations and accomplishing the strategic objectives, i.e. topple the planetary government. The missions would be a lot more engaging if it was up to the player to determine where to set up base camp on a planet, decide which targets to hit first, ie bases, factories, power plants, etc. while at the same time having to defend against counter attacks. It would make for nice level progression as the first mission might be to capture just a single town on a planet and eventually working their way up to a full planet assault.
 
Upvote 0
If I recall correctly, the last few Free Updates made some progress in approximating a “Lance-Command AI.”
If you have a source for that statement, that'd be dandy. I can't recall reading anything like that, but I can recall reading several times that there was no lance-level AI.
 
If you have a source for that statement, that'd be dandy. I can't recall reading anything like that, but I can recall reading several times that there was no lance-level AI.
Indeed HBS has stated there is no Lance-level AI.

But then there have been subsequent (video IIRC) comments to the effect that HBS has refined the weight the AI gives to Proximity to other AI Units.


Of course a very, very good question at this point is, “What constitutes a Lance-level AI?”

I don’t believe it needs to be a separate and distinct segment of coding. It could very well be the aggregate behaviors exhibited by a “Pod” of activated AI entities that have a viable threshold of weight given to proximity, movement away from threat of severely damaged entities and movement toward threat of relatively healthy entities.


After all, what is Lance Command?

Unit Cohesion, efforts to recover injured members of the Unit and efforts to Focus Fire in order to Complete the Mission by still Mission-capable member of the Unit - to me, these apparent behaviors would constitute Lance Command.

If I am right that the BATTLETECH AI gives weight to remaining in proximity to its Lancemates, we may indeed have many of the elements and behaviors I see as a Lance Command AI.



Has Team HBS come out and declared they have a Lance-level AI?

No they have not.


Have all the updates we’ve had through Free Update 1.8 come to approximate a Lance-level of Command for the AI?

I believe so. :bow:




So while the AI may still be found wanting, it has in my opinion made significant progress even since BATTLETECH’s Launch. : )
 
Of course a very, very good question at this point is, “What constitutes a Lance-level AI?”

I don’t believe it needs to be a separate and distinct segment of coding.
I do believe this was HBS' reasoning for not including a lance-level AI either - that, and performance reasons.

However, for this discussion we can define a lance-level AI as an AI being concerned with the overall battle plan; how to achieve the mission parameters (often "kill the player's 'Mechs", but could also be "escape with at least one convoy vehicle" or "make sure at least one building remains standing").

Such an AI would have to evaluate the combat capabilities of its own units as well as those of the player, and the evolving battle situation; not an easy task by any means. And, one I suspect both HBS and you are correct in the game being sufficiently able to approximate by tuning individual 'Mech AI in the majority of the cases.

So while the AI may still be found wanting, it has in my opinion made significant progress even since BATTLETECH’s Launch. : )
This we do agree on. The AI today is better than the AI at launch. Could it be better still? Of course. But at least for me personally, it is as I said above an okay AI for a strategy game. It throws me curve-balls often enough that I can't really relax and face-roll my way through missions, and that's enough for me.

YMMV, as always :)
 
...However, for this discussion we can define a lance-level AI as an AI being concerned with the overall battle plan; how to achieve the mission parameters (often "kill the player's 'Mechs", but could also be "escape with at least one convoy vehicle" or "make sure at least one building remains standing").

Such an AI would have to evaluate the combat capabilities of its own units as well as those of the player, and the evolving battle situation; not an easy task by any means. And, one I suspect both HBS and you are correct in the game being sufficiently able to approximate by tuning individual 'Mech AI in the majority of the cases...
Damn that’s a high bar!

I spent 2 years as a Basic Training Executive Officer and such tactical competence is rare in basically trained humans let alone a game AI.


Okay, okay that’s a lot of apples and oranges but that’s just how it looks to me... sorry. :bow:

If such a Command AI were ever realized in BATTLETECH or any future Big and Stompy game from Harebrained Schemes, I’d likely play that game even more than I’ve played BATTLETECH and its Beta. : )
 
Damn that’s a high bar!

I spent 2 years as a Basic Training Executive Officer and such tactical competence is rare in basically trained humans let alone a game AI.
Well, MechWarriors are highly trained personnel, lance commanders even more so. Not your average grunts ;)

But yes, it is a high bar; higher than I think most people wanting it realises.
 
A couple of things:
  • HBS actually hired a dedicated AI programmer for BATTLETECH.
  • There is no lance-level AI, only individual 'Mech AI.
  • The AI does try to flank, to make pincer movements and other tactics than just "march forward and shoot at nearest target"; especially after the HM update it's much more keen on focusing down a single target (the most damaged one, usually) than it was before.
Could the AI be better? Of course. Is it too simplistic? I don't think so personally, I think it's an okay AI for a strategy game.

Whatever upgrades that were done to the AI were nullified by the new weapons. In my very first campaign run with Heavy Metal the first store opened to me has 2 LBX 2 available which I promptly blew my cash on and mounted on my Blackjack. They were overpowered for the level I was at and I had to double check to make sure my settings were on hard.

Back before the first DLC dropped I stumbled across a Steam thread where people were basically bragging about doing things like mounting 7 PPC on a single mech and how they could 1 shot other mechs. Personally I've never understood that mentality as just being able to blow through enemies doesn't make the game very challenging That said with the new weapons almost every one of my builds is massively overpowered compared to the AI mechs.

My primary mech is an Annihilator and with the ballistic damage buff it does well over a sustained 450 points of damage on a mech at long range with gobs of ammo for long missions. (@Prussian Havoc, wish I had this mech when your fire cats were bearing down on me :-D)

ztpfsx.jpg


My second mech is a similar build that I refer to as the head hunter since I'm averaging more than 1 head shot per 8 mechs faced with it without having to do a called shot to the head.
VH347X.jpg


I throw in the Atlas II given by Arano as a tank. I don't really need it, but use it mostly because I think it is a waste to let the mech sit unused.
AjSBx6.jpg


Lastly I finish off the lance with a Cyclops so I can get the initiative bonus even though it barely does any damage compared to the rest of the mechs in the lance.

I did not post these builds to brag about being a great mech builder because I'm not as I am not a number cruncher. I'm sure there are people out there who with the new weapons and some cheat codes can probably alpha damage over 1000 points. My point is that even without trying very hard I've got a lance that walks through anything the AI sends at me before they even get in range to fire more than PPC's or LRMs which is why I say that I've seen very little change in the AI. If anything the game has become less challenging with the new weapons.

The counter argument can be well just don't use them, but it seems kind of silly to intentionally gimp myself out of equipment that is readily available. If they are going to give the players this kind of equipment, they should at least make sure the AI is up to the task.

@Prussian Havoc I know you have been advocating for these weapons in multiplayer, is that because you want the battles to end faster since people will be doing a lot more damage?
 
That said with the new weapons almost every one of my builds is massively overpowered compared to the AI mechs.
I can't help but notice your lance consists of two 100-tonners (one SL-era), and two 90-tonners, all heavily customised.

Now that kind of lance is of course a natural end-game lance, when the opposing force is 8-12 assault 'Mechs, but it is not really representative of the early or mid-game.

I seldom get to that point in my careers before I start over; I just enjoy the early and mid-game more than the endgame precisely because the end-game so often boils down to "get the closest you can to 400 tons drop-weight and slog your way forward until the mission is done". Early and mid-game, when you can/must drop with a mix of stock and (lightly) customised lights and mediums, with perhaps the odd heavy here and there is much more fun to me.

It's also where it seems the AI works best. I often have the AI send out a single light to circle around my formation, looking for back shots and acting as spotter for LRMs and/or turrets. As soon as one of my lance takes some damage, the AI relentlessly (sometimes recklessly) focuses on that 'Mech to bring it down.

I'm not saying this is "the way to play" - everyone should play the way they enjoy - but it is a way that works very well for me. And one of the perks is that you can use all the "OP" equipment you can buy, borrow, or steal because a piece of equipment here and there isn't going to make your lance OP - like having a 390-ton lance with only +++ and HM-gear would.

Try it, you might like it :)
 
I can't help but notice your lance consists of two 100-tonners (one SL-era), and two 90-tonners, all heavily customised.

Now that kind of lance is of course a natural end-game lance, when the opposing force is 8-12 assault 'Mechs, but it is not really representative of the early or mid-game.

I seldom get to that point in my careers before I start over; I just enjoy the early and mid-game more than the endgame precisely because the end-game so often boils down to "get the closest you can to 400 tons drop-weight and slog your way forward until the mission is done". Early and mid-game, when you can/must drop with a mix of stock and (lightly) customised lights and mediums, with perhaps the odd heavy here and there is much more fun to me.

It's also where it seems the AI works best. I often have the AI send out a single light to circle around my formation, looking for back shots and acting as spotter for LRMs and/or turrets. As soon as one of my lance takes some damage, the AI relentlessly (sometimes recklessly) focuses on that 'Mech to bring it down.

I'm not saying this is "the way to play" - everyone should play the way they enjoy - but it is a way that works very well for me. And one of the perks is that you can use all the "OP" equipment you can buy, borrow, or steal because a piece of equipment here and there isn't going to make your lance OP - like having a 390-ton lance with only +++ and HM-gear would.

Try it, you might like it :)

You are right I'm using it to go through the post campaign flashpoint content, but I was able to get those two Annihilators fairly early on in the game as there was a mission with 3 of them. I got a head shot on one and took the legs off the other two. I was only able to do that because even by that point my mechs were ridiculously overpowered with mostly UC2's and LBX5's.

My play style is to spend most of the time with Darius telling me we are going to run out of money because I spend money buying any high end hardware useful to my play style. I generally keep my mech acquisition to what I can salvage as the prices are ridiculous.

They make that stuff available way too early in the game and the AI doesn't have a defense for the increased damage output. Sure the AI standing in trees with Bulwark reduces the damage by 60%, but a 55 ton mech hit by a single UC5 with breaching shot is instant structural damage if not lost limb against any of the standard mech armor configurations.
 
I just ran the Braying of Hounds FP and saw the best and worst of the AI in the final mission.

The lightest mech on field was the awful one given the primary employer NPC. This resulted in everything shooting at it when given the chance. I had to eject said NPC (thankfully, I actually remembered I could) at 1 internal structure on the core.

This accidentally fit the story perfectly, unless there's also some weighting in target acquisition on this FP.

Subsequently the OpFor got themselves stuck on a ridge. They couldn't push down the side nearest my lance, so just moved side to side, allowing me to Sensor Lock and obliterate each in turn.

The AI really needs enhancing to pull back if it can't move forward. I feel this is tied somewhat to the convoy pathing problem as it's similar behaviour.
 
...@Prussian Havoc I know you have been advocating for these weapons in multiplayer, is that because you want the battles to end faster since people will be doing a lot more damage?
A fast and hard-hitting Knife-Fight of BATTLETECH Multiplayer Match is actually to be embraced and enjoyed for both its Offensive and Defensive stratagems. A game that concludes sooner, simply leaves more time for a second or even third Multiplayer Match. :bow:

So, no, I am simply hopeful to see new BATTLETECH content made available to all BATTLETECH Modes.

HEAVY METAL saw no maps from the new map biome and none of the new weapons added to Skirmish Mode (Single Player Skirmish OR Multiplayer Skirmish.)

This is a disappointing precedent to have set and I hope it is undone with the next major Free Update.

I understand that Multiplayer is not Harebrained Schemes’ Focus of Effort when it comes to BATTLETECH expansions and new content. But during FLASHPOINT and URBAN WARFARE, HBS dedicated the resources needed to realize a number of Skirmish Mode (SP and MP) Jungle Biome and Urban Biome Maps.

These Maps were greatly appreciated by the Multiplayer Community for adding some refreshing diversity and challenge to Multiplayer Game Play. The 18-participant Ragnarok Tournament highlighted the new Jungle Biome with all gameplay taking place in the Jungle Biome.


As to the HEAVY METAL Weapons, we already have a friend-focused model of multiplayer functionality. Adding HEAVY METAL Weapons into the mix will spice things up considerably for our Custom BattleMech Multiplayer Fans. I would like to see that happen.

While we have the current season of @Grayson Marik ’s Inner Sphere Wars League now open, I have not run a Multiplayer Tournament in way too long. Having HBS add some new content to Skirmish Mode would motivate me to run my very first Custom Multiplayer Tournament. : )

And let us not forget, it is not just Multiplayer that is lacking access to HEAVY METAL Maps and Weapons. Single Player Skirmish is also without any HEAVY METAL Maps and Weapons. I know I used to visited Single Player Skirmish to test out ALL my Mech Builds and Lance Tactics prior to a Campaign or Career Attempt. This is no longer possible because HEAVY METAL weapons are not present on either side of Skirmish Mode, Single Player or Multiplayer.


Whether it be Maps and Weapons, or different ways to bring Solaris VII BATTLETECH gaming to life, I would like to see some continued development come to Skirmish Mode.

And as ever, good luck and good gaming!
 
I just ran the Braying of Hounds FP and saw the best and worst of the AI in the final mission.

The lightest mech on field was the awful one given the primary employer NPC. This resulted in everything shooting at it when given the chance. I had to eject said NPC (thankfully, I actually remembered I could) at 1 internal structure on the core.

This accidentally fit the story perfectly, unless there's also some weighting in target acquisition on this FP.

Subsequently the OpFor got themselves stuck on a ridge. They couldn't push down the side nearest my lance, so just moved side to side, allowing me to Sensor Lock and obliterate each in turn.

The AI really needs enhancing to pull back if it can't move forward. I feel this is tied somewhat to the convoy pathing problem as it's similar behaviour.
With that FLASHPOINT tying back to one of our Kickstarter Social Media Rewards, it would be quite appropriate if maybe the BATTLETECH Live Support Team or maybe it’ll require a deeper bench of talent and need to be packaged forward into the next major Free Update, and see some refinement. :bow:

0F62C3F7-8B20-4CCD-9765-09CB21F9E7BC.jpeg
 
AI is hard. It's as simple as that. Those flight simulators have easily exploitable AI as well - all games do. You just have to find the limits of the AIs behaviour and work around them. Although this can kill any further enjoyment of the game, since it removes the challenge.


Regarding developing better AI I guess I don't fully grasp the challenge. I don't think I am wrong in saying that most players think at the lance level as opposed to a unit level.

I think the AI should cheat and look at what mechs the player has which technically would not be cheating since in the real world there would have been intelligence gathering and the makeup of the merc group's mechs would be well known well before any actual fighting started.

The AI should calculate the average damage output for each of the mechs at the different ranges. Based on that data the AI should choose :
  1. Knife fight
  2. Middle range
  3. Long range

From there it can pick 4 mechs that work well together to fulfill that strategy. And when it comes to the second lance it should almost always opt for the kinds of mechs that offer great long range fire support. In the original version those were the only missions where I ever struggled as my guys got rained on by LRMs. With heavy metal none of them are left standing long enough to be a spotter.

For example in a mech on mech battle the lance might have these strategies to choose from in terms of picking a target
  1. Kill weakest to strongest
  2. Kill strongest to weakest
  3. Kill least offense to most
  4. Kill most offense to least
  5. Kill least armored to most
  6. Kill Most armored to least
  7. Kill first sighted
Anyway it would just be helpful if they wrote the AI to evaluate more like a player would. I'm sure @Prussian Havoc would be more than willing to spend some of his retirement time with the HBS developers giving them strategy templates the AI could deploy when it calculates different scenarios. :-D
 
Anyway it would just be helpful if they wrote the AI to evaluate more like a player would. I'm sure @Prussian Havoc would be more than willing to spend some of his retirement time with the HBS developers giving them strategy templates the AI could deploy when it calculates different scenarios. :-D
Clarification, re-wrote. This is in essence a full blown feature request and not a small one. Let's all try to keep it in accurate context.

That's all, proceed. :Bow:
 
BTW I keep pressing this point because I want to see some company do for Battletech what Marvel did for bringing comic book characters to the screen. The graphics have gotten much better than when MechComander 2 dropped, but in many ways the we are still in the same relative space in terms of AI even though we have I7 and I8 processors compared to the Pentium 2's of that era.
 
@SteelOnyx, I would relish an opportunity to assist in the continued development of BATTLETECH. :bow:

That being said... I actually have my 911 GI Bill to spend towards a second career if I should so choose.

Anyone know of a reputable online game design degree program?

@HBS_Eck, since you are living the dream (Kickstarter to Team HBS), do you have any recommendation?
 
Multiple lances on the same mission
The original PC game supported multiple lances and from a systems standpoint there are multiple missions in this version where there are 12 or more mechs on the screen at any given time.

Query: Exactly what original game are you referring to there?
 
Regarding developing better AI I guess I don't fully grasp the challenge. I don't think I am wrong in saying that most players think at the lance level as opposed to a unit level.

I think the AI should cheat and look at what mechs the player has which technically would not be cheating since in the real world there would have been intelligence gathering and the makeup of the merc group's mechs would be well known well before any actual fighting started.

The AI should calculate the average damage output for each of the mechs at the different ranges. Based on that data the AI should choose :
  1. Knife fight
  2. Middle range
  3. Long range
The AI already does a decent amount of this, but at the unit level not at the lance/battlefield level. Iirc it's evaluating over 50 different factors ("damage output, input, heat, cover, etc" per hbs staff) to reach a decision for what the optimal action is per tile (or brace as a fallback if it times out on it's evaluation). It's biggest weaknesses currently are really bracing on timeout instead of choosing best optimal move that has been previously determined during eval, and no coordination at a higher level than a single unit's turn. The first *may* be easyish to change relatively speaking, the second would probably require a complete rewrite if i had to hazard a guess.
 
MechCommander. I know different company etc. but it was a manage the lance game as opposed to a simulator like Mechwarrior. I originally thought it was called Battletech as well, but that is just my memory fading with age.
Oh! Now wouldn’t that be MECHTASTIC!

If one of HBS’ “Secret Projects” turned out be MechCommander 3, I’d be pre-ordering that in a heartbeat. : )